Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MARGATE) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Guided Weapon Regiments

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War on what date the two surface to surface guided weapon regiments at present under training will join the British Army of the Rhine.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): The first regiment will move to B.A.O.R. in the autumn of this year. It is too soon to announce a date for the move of the second regiment.

Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House what the deployment on this date will be? Can we take it that those regiments will then have the capability of firing a warhead of approximately one ton of T.N.T. and that its nuclear capability will depend only upon the availability of atomic warheads as and when the American authorities care to make them available?

Mr. Amery: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a further Question on that point.

F.N. Rifle

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in the production of the F.N. rifle; and to what extent our troops have been equipped with this weapon.

Mr. Amery: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answer given on

7th May to the hon. Members for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).

Mr. Shinwell: I saw that, and that is why I regard the matter as most unsatisfactory. May I ask whether our troops in the Aden Protectorate engaged in activities on the Yemen frontier have an issue of the F.N. rifle, or whether they are now using a rifle which, by modern standards, is regarded as obsolescent? If they have not got the F.N. rifle, why not?

Mr. Amery: I think last week I gave figures of the number of F.N. rifles that have been put into the Army. A further 36,000 or probably more—it may well be a higher figure—will be put into the Army this year. I cannot say for certain what proportion of the troops in Aden have F.N. rifles, but I will certainly look into the question.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter, because we must safeguard the interests of our men in the field? Whatever may be the merits of the policy which takes them there, at any rate they must be issued with the most modern weapon.

Mr. Amery: I will look into the matter as the right hon. Gentleman asks.

Mr. Mellish: Is not it a fact that the Yemeni are supposed to be equipped with automatic rifles? Is not it a deplorable fact that the British Army is not equipped with the best possible weapons available?

Mr. Amery: It would be a mistake to think that all the Yemeni are equipped with automatic rifles.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the real deficiency is not in the rate of production this year but that the production of these rifles did not start until this year? Why was there the six years' delay, since the decision to make this rifle was taken the very first time that the present Government came into office after the war? That is the extraordinary delay which has never been explained.

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do the difficulties of production and the introduction of a new family of weapons into


the Service. What is of encouragement to all of us is that production this year will be in excess of what was estimated.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of an Answer which was given last week by the War Office, the hon. Gentleman has given a piece of incorrect information. May I respectfully point out that I was informed by the Secretary of State that none of the troops in Aden have got F.N. rifles?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Trooper Corstorphine

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has investigated the circumstances in which 23403701 Trooper A. C. Corstorphine, National Service man, was killed in Germany on 14th March; what training this National Service man had received before being allowed to drive a motor vehicle; whether he was accompanied by a driving instructor at the time of the accident; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: Trooper Corstorphine was a learner driver with about 35 hours' experience. On 14th March he was authorised to carry out practice driving in a scout car carrying "L" plates. He was accompanied by a qualified driver acting as his instructor. In approaching a corner his car left the road and overturned. The instructor was thrown clear, but Trooper Corstorphine was fatally injured.
I should like to express to the parents of this soldier my deep sympathy with them in their bereavement.

Mr. Yates: Does the Minister realise that very great distress has been caused by the knowledge—which seems to be somewhat different from what the Minister said—that the vehicle the man was driving was a heavier one, and further that the length of time he had been driving was not very long and that it is customary to be accompanied by a learner-driver, not a driver? That is why very great distress has been caused.

Mr. Amery: As I said, Trooper Corstorphine was by no means a beginner. He had 35 hours' driving experience. This was a practice run on which he was accompanied by an experienced driver.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has examined the file copy of the letter addressed to Mr. Corstorphine, 256, Great King Street, Hockley, Birmingham, by Royal Armoured Corps Records, dated 15th March, 1958, confirming the death of his son, Trooper A. C. Corstorphine, in Germany; and whether he will consider introducing a more appropriate letter of sympathy on such occasions.

Mr. Amery: The letter was sent on a Saturday, when the Records Office was closed except for two members of the staff on duty. To avoid delay at weekends, it had been arranged that the duty staff should confirm casualty telegrams if the need arose by sending a standard, duplicated letter with the details completed in manuscript. Although this was done with the good intention of reducing delay, these makeshift form letters are quite unsuitable.
My right hon. Friend regrets that one was sent to Mr. Corstorphine and he has given instructions that they shall not be used again.

Mr. Yates: I thank the Minister for that Answer, which I am sure will give some comfort to the people, especially those with relatives in the Forces, in case such tragedies happen in future. A letter which is partly typed and partly written in ink is calculated to give deep distress. I much appreciate the Minister's decision to make this change.

Mr. Amery: I have explained the circumstances, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the Question.

Boots

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement in respect of the criticism by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in his report on the Army Appropriation Accounts, 1956–57, on the ordering of 1,250,000 pairs of boots and 1,000,000 half soles; how much they cost; what it is proposed to do with them; and what action has been taken or contemplated against those responsible.

Mr. Amery: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 3rd April by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the answer was not given on 3rd April? Will he now answer the Question? How much did these boots and half soles cost, and what is proposed to be done with them? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this was a colossal blunder which cost a lot of public money? Why does he continue to dodge the issue and say that the Answer was given on 3rd April when it was not?

Mr. Amery: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this report is being examined by the Public Accounts Committee. It would be wholly improper for me to comment on its findings before they are published.

Forces, Aden (Welfare and Accommodation)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the welfare and accommodation arrangements of the 1st Battalion, The Buffs, the 1st Battalion, King's Shropshire Light Infantry, and the 1st Battalion, York and Lancaster Regiment, at present serving in Aden.

Mr. Amery: The 1st Battalion the York and Lancaster Regiment is in a tented camp. The other two battalions are divided between hutted camps and a number of air-conditioned huts which have been loaned to the Army by the British Petroleum oil refinery. These are temporary arrangements to provide for the reinforced garrison.
Permanent accommodation with married quarters will be provided and work on the first seventy-five married quarters is to begin this year. Our troops have access to clubs, canteens and cinemas which are shared with the Royal Air Force. These amenities will be extended by the provision of an Army Garrison Club.

Mr. Wigg: Will the hon. Gentleman, first of all, tell the House whether these troops have enough water to drink or to wash, and sufficient water for cooking and sanitary purposes? When it has been clear for a considerable time that it might be necessary to reinforce the Aden garrison in an emergency, how comes it that the Government intend to leave a battalion in this climate under tents for the whole of the coming summer?

Mr. Amery: I have received no complaints about the water supplies, but I shall certainly look into what the hon. Gentleman has said. The existing accommodation for the garrison battalion was, in our view, inadequate, and that is why special steps have been taken to provide permanent accommodation and more married quarters. Naturally, the fact that the garrison needed to be reinforced made the position less easy.

Mr. Strachey: If, as seems probable, it is necessary to keep something like this number of troops there for a prolonged period, should not the Under-Secretary of State consider air conditioning and a thorough job for the battalion or battalions that may be kept there?

Mr. Amery: As I say, we have been fortunate in having air-conditioned accommodation loaned to us by the oil companies, but it is a little early yet to say whether there will be any need for a permanent reinforcement of the garrison.

Mr. Langford-Holt: In view of the fact that the King's Shropshire Light Infantry were on their way back from East Africa, would it be right to say that they do not at present have their personal baggage and belongings with them? If so, how long will it be before they are in possession of them?

Mr. Amery: The advance party of the K.S.L.I. are already back in this country and we expect the rest of the unit to follow quite shortly. No doubt there will be certain shortages in their equipment, but I understand that these at the moment are not too serious.

Mr. Wigg: Are the York and Lan-casters to stay under canvas all the summer?

Officers' Pensions

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War on what date his attention was drawn by the Officers' Pensions Society to the amended rule about the rate of pension on voluntary retirement which had been put into operation by the other Services; and why he did not make a similar amendment to his rules at the same time as the Admiralty and the Air Ministry.

Mr. Amery: The first request was received in October, 1956.
My hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing that the other two Services made changes similar to the one which was announced on 26th February.
The old rule applied only to the Army, and the other Services were not concerned.

Dame Irene Ward: In thanking the Under-Secretary of State for that additional piece of information, may I ask him whether he has reconsidered the decision last week to back-date this concession only to 1st January this year, in the light of what I said in my last supplementary question?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. Our general rule, as I explained last week, is that there can be no back-dating in changes of this kind. I recognise, however, because of the burden of work which the reorganisation of the Army imposed on the War Office last year, that there was some delay in dealing with the request from the Officers' Pensions Society. We do not wish the pensioners to suffer from this delay, and in the circumstances we have decided that the new rates will be back-dated to October, 1956, when the request was first made.

Dame Irene Ward: May I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer? It will give great satisfaction to know that a little bit of humanity has come into the administration of the War Office.

Regiments (Amalgamation)

Mr. du Cann: asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made towards the amalgamation of the Somerset Light Infantry and the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry.

Mr. Amery: This amalgamation is not due to take place until the last quarter of 1959. Arrangements are being made accordingly.

Mr. du Cann: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the arrangements which are being planned at this moment reflect great credit on all ranks? Will he join with those concerned in this matter in expressing the hope that the new single regiment may have traditions as fine and glorious as the two ancient regiments?

Mr. Amery: I am very glad to agree with every word said by my hon. Friend.

R.A.S.C. Warrant Officer (Lodging Allowance)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a warrant officer of 909 Company, Royal Army Service Corps, is being asked to refund £334 10s. from his wages for lodging allowance paid to him over a previous period; and, as this error was not the fault of the soldier, if he will cancel this charge.

Mr. Amery: I am afraid that in the time available my right hon. Friend has not been able to consider all aspects of this rather complicated case; but I will write to the hon. Lady as soon as I can.
In the meantime I am glad to be able to tell her that at least part of this debt will be written off.

Mrs. Mann: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is shock enough to the Service man to have the lodging allowance discontinued without being asked to pay £334 for the last two or three years? Surely it can all be written off. Is not he aware that this warrant officer is receiving only £1 a week just now, and that his hire-purchase commitments present a particular problem? Will he consider remitting the entire amount?

Mr. Amery: I agree with the hon. Lady that in this case the over-issue arose through no fault of the soldier. That is why I have said we shall write off at least a substantial part of the debt. I do not wish to go beyond that at this stage, but I will write to the hon. Lady in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Ashington, Northumberland

Mr. Owen: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now say when the proposed new post office will be open for public service at Ashington, Northumberland.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I regret that the negotiations mentioned in my right hon. Friend's reply of 18th December, 1957, did not result in a solution. I hope, however, that following a meeting with the landlord yesterday, it will be possible to proceed on a new basis. I will keep the hon. Member informed of developments.

Automatic Telephone Company, Liverpool

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Postmaster-General what reply he sent to the telegram he received from the Chairman of the Shop Stewards Committee at the Automatic Telephone Company, Liverpool, with reference to the result of an extra 400 men and women employees being discharged due to the cut in capital estimates by his Department.

Mr. K. Thompson: A reply has been sent in similar terms to that given to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) in the House on 30th April.

Mrs. Braddock: In view of this very serious situation in the Automatic Telephone Company, can the hon. Gentleman say on what date a reply to the telegram was sent and how long it took to acknowledge?

Mr. Thompson: The reply was sent by my right hon. Friend on 12th May.

Mail Deliveries

Mr. Collins: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that delays in the receipt and delivery of mails are frequently occurring in London, E.C.1, E.C.2 and E.2 postal districts; and what are his proposals for restoring a normal service.

Mr. K. Thompson: I regret that there have been delays to the mails in London, but the delivery services in these areas are now much better and in the past few days they have been made at normal times. We are doing all we can to overcome the remaining difficulties.

Mr. Collins: Whilst welcoming the Minister's Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that the trouble arose because in some offices minor concessional reliefs were mistakenly regarded as having been cancelled by the package deal? Will the bon. Gentleman take all possible steps to clear away any misunderstanding that still exists? Is he aware that the Union of Post Office Workers has called on its members, in the most explicit terms, to honour the agreement and to assist to the full in the restoration of postal services to their full efficiency?

Mr. Thompson: Yes. We have had the fullest co-operation from the Union of Post Office Workers in this matter and

we are working hard to get any remaining difficulties removed.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not this an occasion when the hon. Gentleman might pay tribute to the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers for the very strong stand he has taken for the adherence of the employees to the terms of the agreement?

Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for repeating what I said.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the hon. Gentleman say what this trouble was about? Perhaps I have missed something, but I have not noticed any explanation of how the difficulty arose and what it is all about. Is not it time that the House was told, if it has not already been told?

Mr. Thompson: I will gladly give the House information on the subject. There is nothing secret or mysterious about it. As a result of the new conditions of service and the new wage rates that were negotiated some time ago, certain changes were made in the schedules of duties of a lot of the postal staffs all over the country. The agreement has been honoured in the letter and the spirit extremely well throughout the country, with the exception of two or three London offices, where there have been difficulties because some of the employees felt that they were at a disadvantage as a result of the change. We are dealing with their viewpoints as they arise.

Mr. du Cann: asked the Postmaster-General whether the delays in the delivery of mail owing to an unofficial go-slow in certain post offices in London are still continuing; what action he proposes to take to avoid similar dislocation of services in future; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Thompson: I am glad there has been an improvement and deliveries are now going out at normal hours. A special air service has been introduced between London Airport and Birmingham to reduce the delay caused by the re-routing to Birmingham of some letters from overseas.

Mr. du Cann: Will not my hon. Friend agree that this severe public dislocation has been caused in spite of both the extremely fair attitude adopted by the


G.P.O. and the responsible attitude adopted by the trade union concerned? Will my hon. Friend therefore say whether this dislocation has been the work of just a few agitators and, if so, whether he proposes to retain them in the postal service?

Mr. Thompson: It is our job on the side of administration to see that we abide by our part of the bargain that was negotiated, and we expect the employees to abide by their side of the bargain in the spirit and in the letter.

Cranes Park Estate, Sheldon

Mr. Usborne: asked the Postmaster-General when he intends to set up a sub-post office on the Cranes Park Estate, Sheldon, Birmingham.

Mr. K. Thompson: I am having fresh inquiries made and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Usborne: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the nearest post office to this estate is about a mile away and that a great many of the citizens who live on the estate have been petitioning for a long time for a sub-post office somewhere in the district?

Mr. Thompson: As the hon. Member knows, we have had this matter under review; the hon. Member himself has brought it to our attention. We are having another look at it to see whether there is any good ground for installing a new sub-office.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Kiosks, London Railway Termini

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General at what intervals telephone instruments in call-boxes at London main line railway termini are inspected for faults.

Mr. K. Thompson: A full inspection of these boxes is carried out on alternate days and test calls are frequently passed on other days by Post Office officials.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend, and, perhaps, his right hon. Friend, make one of their famous tours by walking round and picking up the telephone instruments in the London railway termini, where I think it will be found that about one in every three is out of order at any one time? Is my hon. Friend aware that the general public possibly do not report these faults and,

therefore, they do not get picked up by the Post Office?

Mr. Thompson: If my hon. Friend has examples of where the telephones are not working, we will certainly look into them. We do, however, maintain the closest possible watch on them.

Kiosks (Change Machines)

Mr. Knox Cunningham: asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider installing automatic slot machines to provide change for use in public telephone boxes; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Thompson: No, Sir. These machines would add further to the already high costs of the boxes and their equipment, and restrict the space available.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: If my hon. Friend does not feel that he could take action on the lines suggested at the present time, will he consider makim!, some arrangement with London Transport for the convenience of the public in the London area so that change could be provided at Underground booking offices for the telephone boxes?

Mr. Thompson: I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind, but I am not sure that it would be readily accepted by London Transport.

Mr. J. Hynd: Has the Minister ever considered the desirability of introducing the token system, which is applied in many Continental countries, which can be used irrespective of any changes in the charges for telephone calls and which avoids the difficulty of carrying masses of coppers in one's pocket?

Mr. Thompson: We have to bear in mind that tokens of that kind are easily forged and we have to keep a close watch on the kind of coins that go through our boxes.

Instrument (New Design)

Mr. H. Steward: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to introduce a new design of telephone; and what charge he proposes to make for it.

Mr. K. Thompson: I am glad to say that with the co-operation of the manufacturers and the Council of Industrial Design, we have completed the design of a new telephone instrument. It will have an improved technical performance and will be made in a new and extended


range of colours. First supplies are expected in the spring of next year.
The charge for a coloured telephone of the new design will be £5 or £3 if in replacement of a coloured instrument of the present design. The charge for the present coloured telephone will be reduced from £3 to £2 as from tomorrow.
Members may like to see models which are now on display in the Upper Waiting Hall.

Mr. Steward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement he has just made will give general satisfaction, and that the improved technique both in manufacture and also in operating performance, is a tribute both to the industry and to the engineers at Dollis Hill? May I ask my hon. Friend how soon he anticipates that existing stocks will be liquidated, and also when the new telephone will be in general manufacture? Is it proposed to discontinue—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ring him up."]—with the new telephone we could do it more efficiently—is it proposed to discontinue any of the additional charge as and when the new telephone becomes a source of general manufacture of the standard instrument? Also is my hon. Friend aware——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is enough.

Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I am sure the House is, for his tribute to the technicians—both the manufacturers and our own engineers at Dollis Hill—for the work they have done on this new telephone. We have large stocks of the present one still to work off, but as soon as we can get the flow of new instruments coming forward, we will try to phase the two processes in together.

Mr. Hale: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that a much more important job is to introduce a new design of Postmaster-General, and that we are proposing to introduce one of a different colour next year?

Mr. Thompson: That will be one of the few innovations for which the party opposite will be able to claim any credit.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION

Programmes (Political Bias)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General what complaints he has received alleging political bias in recent television

programmes; and what action he is taking.

Mr. K. Thompson: There have been recent articles in the Press mentioning allegations of political bias in two television programmes. Complaints have also been made to me. One was the B.B.C. "Panorama" programme of 28th April. The other was an I.T.A. programme "Polio 1958" on the same night. I have read the script made from a recording of the Panorama programme, but as I did not see it I cannot comment on its effect on viewers generally although there were a couple of passages which, taken alone, might suggest bias in presentation. I would remind the House that it is the Governors' responsibility to ensure the impartiality of their programmes and I think that in general they are successful. Nevertheless, I have taken steps to have the Corporation's attention drawn to my reservations about this particular programme.
The I.T.A. tells me that the balance of opinion in the "Polio" programme was not as complete as had been planned. It has already dealt with the matter. I do not propose to take any further action.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not a fact that by and large the people responsible for the television programmes present a reasonably impartial account of whatever they are dealing with? Will the Government make it quite clear that it is not their intention to interfere with these programmes, even if they do sometimes reflect, deservedly, upon the conduct and efficiency of the present Administration?

Mr. Thompson: It is my right hon. Friend's duty to see that the B.B.C. abides by the terms of the Charter and Licence, and that the I.T.A. obeys the terms of the Television Act. That he will do.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Is not it time that the Postmaster-General saw the Chairman of the I.T.A., in view of the continuous breaches of the Act which take place and for which, when they are brought to notice, an apology is made? Would not it be to the Minister's advantage to have a heart-to-heart talk on the matter to prevent these notorious breaches of the Act?

Mr. Thompson: Whenever any alleged or suggested breach is brought to my


right hon. Friend's notice, he takes appropriate steps.

Captain Pilkington: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread feeling that the television programmes are strongly biased on the Socialist side?

Mr. G. Thomas: That is in Poole.

Mr. Hale: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General bear in mind that the B.B.C. television authorities complain that to present the somewhat vague, tenuous and unstable views of Her Majesty's present advisers as intelligible and intelligent, it is almost essential that they should use euphemistic words and flattering terms?

Mr. Thompson: The longer this exchange goes on, the clearer it becomes that bias lieth in the eye of the beholder.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General what consultations he has had with the Director General of the British Broadcasting Corporation about complaints of political bias in a recent television programme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Thompson: My right hon. Friend has had no such consultations, but I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton).

Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has said that representations have been made by the Postmaster-General to the B.B.C. and to the I.T.A. about two programmes—the Panorama and vaccine programmes—may we take it that only when the Conservative Central Office makes representations to him does he make representations to the B.B.C.?

Mr. Thompson: I have already assured the House that whenever either of the companies is alleged to be in breach, my right hon. Friend considers the position and takes what steps he thinks practical.

Mr. H. Morrison: Could the hon. Gentleman inquire into an apparent element of bias, which may be political or not? Could he inquire why it is that the B.B.C. assumes that nobody without a university education has any brains, and that normally nobody without a university education can appear on the Brains Trust? Will he try to stop this snobbish bias against people, like many of us on this side of the House, who have only

had an elementary education and are proud of it?

Mr. Thompson: Speaking as one with a similar education, may I say that I have no doubt that the attention of the B.B.C. will be drawn to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Members' Broadcasts

Mr. Benn: asked the Postmaster-General how many Conservative, Labour, Liberal and Independent Members of Parliament broadcast in the ordinary British Broadcasting Corporation's television and Independent Television Authority's programmes, respectively, and in how many broadcasts they appeared, listed by party affiliation, for each of the last 24 months for which figures are available; how many Members of Parliament of each party appeared in the British Broadcasting Corporation's television and Independent Television Authority's news programmes, and in how many such programmes they appeared, listed by part-affiliation, over the same period; and if he will furnish these figures to the Library of the House of Commons regularly, together with corresponding figurer for the British Broadcasting Corporation's sound programmes divided as between the Home and Overseas services.

Mr. K. Thompson: As a number of figures are involved I will, with permission, circulate such figures as are available regarding the appearance of Members in ordinary television programmes, in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The figures regarding the appearance of Members in television news programmes could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour. I am assured that such appearances are governed entirely by news interest.
As to the last part of the Question, I do not think the House really wants figures in such detail regularly. I will always try to obtain whatever figures are available if I am asked for them.

Mr. Benn: While thanking the Assistant Postmaster-General for that reply, may I ask him to recognise that a matter of public interest is involved in this, particularly in the appearance of Ministers in news programmes, as it is questioned whether the present number of Ministerial appearances is justified by the value of the present Administration's activities?

Mr. Thompson: We find ourselves in danger of repeating ourselves. The choice of news items is entirely a matter for the companies themselves and we must leave it to them.

Mr. G. Thomas: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General give us the names so that, without having even the appearance of sour grapes, we could see which of

NUMBER OF M.P.s AND APPEARANCES ON B.B.C. TELEVISION FROM 1ST APRIL, 1956–31ST MARCH, 1958


(excluding news programmes and party political broadcasts)


Date
Conservative
Number of broadcasts
Labour
Number of broadcasts
Liberal
Number of broadcasts
Independent
Number of broadcasts


1st April-30th June, 1956
6
6
7
13
—
—
—
—


1st July-30th September,1956
6
6
4
4
1
1
—
—


1st October-31st December, 1956
15
17
8
9
2
2
—
—


1st January-31st March, 1957
10
13
13
15
—
—
1
1


TOTAL
32*
42
25*
41
2*
3
1
1


1st April-30th June, 1957
8
9
10
12
—
—
—
—


1st July-30th September, 1957
9
9
9
11
1
2
1
1


1st October—31st December, 1957
12
13
9
13
1
1
—
—


1st January—31st March, 1958
14
17
11
11
1
1
—
—


TOTAL
35*
48
28*
47
2*
4
1
1


Note.—The figures are not available in monthly periods.


* These figures represented the total number of M.P.s who have appeared in the year. Several Members have appeared in more than one quarter.

I.T.A.


APPEARANCES OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT—JANUARY TO SEPTEMBER, 1957 (INCLUSIVE), (EXCLUDING NEWS PROGRAMMES, AND PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS)




Conservative
Labour
Liberal


January
…
11
8
—


February
…
15
12
—


March
…
13
10
—


April
…
14
7
—


May
…
14
8
1


June
…
2
6
—


July
…
3
10
—


August
…
3
6
—


September
…
3
8
2


Total
…
78
75
3

NOTES:

1. The number of M.P.s, as distinct from appearances, is not available.

2. Figures from October, 1957, are not readily available.

our privileged colleagues appear from time to time on the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.?

Mr. Thompson: I am not sure whether that information can be made easily available, but I will look into the hon. Member's suggestion.

Following are the figures:

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Kemble Aerodrome

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for Air how much money has been expended on Kemble aerodrome since 1948; and what he estimates would be the approximate cost of extending the present runway for half a mile in the direction away from Kemble village.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Since April, 1948, about £400,000 has been spent on the maintenance of the airfield and buildings, and about £176,000 on new work. The cost of extending the runway for half a mile in the direction away from Kemble village is provisionally estimated at about £500,000.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend of the opinion that the extension of this runway in the opposite direction, so that the runway is not used close to the village, would be of considerable help to the inhabitants of the village, who are undergoing this intolerable nuisance?

Mr. Ward: There are two things one can do. One is to extend the existing runway so as to use only the far end of it, and the other is to swing the runway round a little. Both would be equally expensive and neither would entirely solve the problem.

Maintenance Unit, Handforth

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Air what compensation is to be paid to 1,800 civilians from Manchester, Salford and neighbouring areas who will be made redundant when the Royal Air Force establishment is closed down in Wilmslow.

Mr. Ward: The unestablished civil servants at the maintenance unit we are closing at Handforth, near Wilmslow, will be paid such gratuity as they may have earned under the Superannuation Acts. For established civil servants, the arrangements will be those announced by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 28th April in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn).

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is extremely difficult for elderly or low-paid workers to go to jobs at the other end of the country, even if these are available? Will he, therefore, consider ensuring that the new regulations announced on 28th April are interpreted sympathetically, particularly in view of the growing unemployment in that area?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir.

Transport Aircraft (Maintenance Costs)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what study he is making of the cost of maintaining transport aircraft which have been in Royal Air Force Squadron service for 5, 10 and 15 years, respectively.

Mr. Ward: We keep a close watch on maintenance costs for different types of aircraft.
None of our transport aircraft has been in service for as long as fifteen years. Of the types at present in service in any numbers, only the Hastings was introduced as much as ten years ago. Individual Hastings may be no more than six years old.

Mr. de Freitas: Did not the Minister of Supply tell me on Monday that there were four aircraft—the Hastings, the Valetta, the Viking and the Dakota—which had been in service for ten years or more? Is it not a fact that it is becoming very uneconomical to maintain these aircraft? When will the Air Council state a requirement for replacements which will be far more economical?

Mr. Ward: I did not include the Dakota because strictly it is not within the scope of the Question. The Valetta, of course, is on its way out and will be disappearing by the middle of 1959.

Conference

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Royal Air Force conference, "Prospect II," which took place on 6th May, was held with his authority; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the recent speeches of Sir Dermot Boyle and other Royal Air Force officers at the Royal Empire Society's Hall represent Government policy on the future of the Royal Air Force; whether he will make a statement about the future of the Royal Air Force, particularly regarding the possibilities of the supersonic bomber and another supersonic fighter to follow the English Electric P.1; and to what extent the Royal Air Force is making plans for space flying.

Mr. Ward: The conference was held with the authority of the Minister of Defence and myself. Nothing said at the conference should be interpreted as indicating any divergence from the Government's policy for the Royal Air Force, as set out in recent Defence White Papers and statements to Parliament.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he and the Minister of Defence concur in the view expressed by Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Tedder, when he said that if there was not


another V-bomber on the drawing board at the moment, it was unlikely that there would be one in ten years' time? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the evidence given at the inquiry in the United States into the satellites and missile programme, where it was stated on the highest authority that there will be a requirement for a manned bomber and interceptor for at least fifteen years, and is not that statement in contradiction with the policy announced in the last two White Papers?

Mr. Ward: I really do not think that arises out of the Question, which asks me whether the conference was held with my authority.

Mr. Mason: Would the right hon. Gentleman give a reply to the second half of my original Question about the future of the supersonic bomber and fighter and the interest of the Royal Air Force in space flight? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of us, on this side of the House anyway, think they obviously flouted official defence policy at the "Prospect" conference, and is not this a dangerous trend? Further, does not the right hon. Gentleman himself regret the fact that it is apt to bring into the open the battle which has been taking place behind the scenes between himself and the Minister of Defence about the future of R.A.F. policy, and should not he himself regret bringing into the open public statements of Marshals of the Royal Air Force to help him in his task?

Mr. Ward: The policy regarding the aircraft which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is clearly laid down in the White Papers dealing with Defence and the Air Estimates Memorandum. Anything else that was mentioned, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, dealt with a speculative field many years ahead. Finally, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no divergence of opinion whatever between my right hon. Friend and myself.

Dr. Bennett: Is not it a fact that the indignation which has been somewhat belatedly whipped up about this conference was made possible only by the synthesising of a whole lot of replies at a sort of question time, replies to questions generally directed to the usefulness or otherwise of any weapon, the questions

coming one after another? Have not all these been put together in order to generate a case which is very tenuous?

Mr. Shinwell: As there seems to be some confusion about this matter, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Air Marshals, including the Chief of Air Staff, were in favour of the production of a manned supersonic bomber for several years to come? In order to clear up the matter to the satisfaction of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and if there were an all-party demand for a meeting in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs, say Room 14, would there be any objection to the Royal Air Force Marshals coming to address hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the subject?

Mr. Ward: Let me make it clear that the Chief of the Air Staff and also the rest of the Air Staff are, completely and absolutely, loyal supporters of the Government's defence policy. They have in no way disagreed with that policy as laid down. The important thing to remember is the time scale in this matter and the special circumstances which the Prime Minister made clear yesterday.

Mr. de Freitas: Do the Government intend to order another manned bomber?

Mr. Ward: We have already announced to the House that industry is now making a study of a possible replacement for the Canberra.

Mr. S. Silverman: In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, that all of the statements made at the conference were based on the hypothesis that ballistic missiles would find some means of defence, and his further statement, that there is at present no such defence and that no one expects that in the near future there will be, was not the whole of this adventure rather an enterprise in the realm of science fiction? Therefore, was its expense justified?

Mr. Ward: Certainly it was not an adventure in the realm of science fiction. It is our duty constantly to peer ahead, and some way ahead, and to try to see what changed circumstances might arise in the far future.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I shall seek an opportunity


of raising this matter on the Adjournment, not to impugn the honour of distinguished officers, whom I certainly respect, but to impugn the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Air the names of the persons authorised by him to write the sketches presented to the Royal Air Force conference held on Tuesday, 6th May, 1958.

Mr. Ward: The sketches were prepared within the Air Ministry.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the excellent Press which these sketches have enjoyed and the widespread public interest which they have aroused, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for the authors and actors to present these sketches in, say, Westminster Hall, so that hon. Members may be able better to appreciate whether the reflections made upon them were true?

Mr. Ward: No, I am afraid that this is not a twice-nightly performance.

Dr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend convey to those concerned the congratulations of many hon. Members on the skill of the writing of the sketches and upon their performance?

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Air the purpose of the Royal Air Force conference held on Tuesday, 6th May; and how much it cost.

Mr. Ward: The purpose was explained yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Extra expenditure was about £260.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the hullabaloo which has followed the conference, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the expenditure was justified, and can he say whether his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence shares that opinion?

Mr. Ward: Judging by the number of appreciative opinions which I have received, I should have thought that it was cheap at the price.

Mr. Strachey: Can the Secretary of State explain how almost the entire Press of this country received the impression that the purpose of the conference was to press the view that another generation

of manned aircraft should immediately be developed? Is not that view in distinct contradiction to that given us by the Minister of Defence and other Government spokesmen? If this was not the case, can the right hon. Gentleman take steps to get this widespread misapprehension cleared up?

Mr. Ward: The Press is free, and I hope always will be free, to place any interpretation it wishes on what is said in public. I have been trying, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tried yesterday, to explain the correct interpretation to the House. I ask hon. Members to remember that it was not easy to condense into one day a conference which had taken three days at Cranwell.

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will arrange for conferences similar to "Prospect II" to be held annually.

Mr. Ward: No, Sir. I do not think it would necessarily be desirable to hold such conferences at regular annual intervals.

Mr. Short: In view of the controversy which has arisen over this conference, will the right hon. Gentleman consider inviting all hon. Members to attend future conferences? In order to clear up the present controversy, will he consider putting a verbatim report of this year's conference in the Library, so that hon. Members who were not present can judge for themselves?

Mr. Ward: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed the conference, but I do not think that it is something which one wants to do every year? The actual verbatim record of the conference will take some time to compile, but what I can do, and will be prepared to do fairly quickly, is to put in the Library the scripts of the various presentations.

Mr. Shinwell: If the recent conference served a useful purpose, and that is the opinion of the Government, why not have an annual conference, or a biennial conference or a six-monthly conference, and open it to everybody in the House, instead of confining it to a few people who attended because of the patronage of the Whips on both sides?

Later—

Mr. Mason: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the paper floating round the House is causing a great deal of discussion on the back benches and has been referred to by one of my right hon. Friends, would not it be wise to lay it on the Table, so that we can all see it?

Mr. Speaker: I do not understand the hon. Member's point of order.

Mr. Mason: A great deal of discussion is taking place on the back benches because of a document which has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who has since handed it to the Government Chief Whip. Would not it be wise and sensible at this stage, in view of the controversy that it is causing, for it to be laid on the Table so that we can all be made aware of its contents?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the document is. I could not give a direction about an unknown piece of paper like that.

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order.

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order. The hon. Member was proposing to speak further to a non-existent point of order. He cannot do that.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? How is it possible to judge my point of order before it is heard?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member did not say that. He said it was "further to the point of order". I had just ruled that there was no point of order. The hon. Member cannot speak further to something that does not exist.

Mr. Rankin: This is a new point of order. May we ask that the document which is now here, in the hands of the Chief Patronage Secretary, should be laid with the other papers which are to be laid by the Secretary of State for Air——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point of order in that. The hon. Member ought to know that.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. The document referred to is a private letter addressed to me. While I have no objection to its being tabled, I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who borrowed it, might have consulted me.

Mr. Speaker: It is an unknown piece of paper as far as I am concerned.

Ballistic Missiles (Anglo-American Agreement)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made with the carrying into effect of the agreement with the United States of America on the supply of ballistic missiles to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ward: The first group of R.A.F. officers and airmen to be trained to operate the missiles leaves for the United States this week. Some American technicians have already arrived in this country.
Other arrangements for the carrying into effect of our agreement are well in hand.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this agreement was accepted by many of us only on the understanding that the McMahon Act would be revised? Would not he agree that the implementation of this agreement, which suggests that British as opposed to American personnel are not to be trusted with the custody of the warheads, should proceed in step with the revision of the McMahon Act?

Mr. Ward: That is not a matter for me. We are working in close collaboration with the Americans under our joint agreement.

Mr. de Freitas: Surely the point about the McMahon Act is the whole basis of the agreement and the planning. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can deal with that, since it must be something to do with him. After all, it is his Service which will operate it?

Mr. Ward: We have reached an agreement with the Americans and we are working under that agreement. Any new agreement to be signed is not a matter for me.

Women's Royal Air Force (Recruiting)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the latest recruiting figures show that the trades in which there is the greatest need for recruits are those particularly suitable for women; and what special steps he is taking to stimulate recruiting for radar-operating and administrative trades in the Women's Royal Air Force.

Mr. Ward: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to Questions on this subject last week.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Pedestrian Crossings

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, from his records of road accidents, he will state the comparative risk of accident to a pedestrian using a pedestrian crossing and a pedestrian who crosses the road within fifty yards, or other recorded distance, from the crossing.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): Figures are not available for the country as a whole, but a survey undertaken on a limited scale three years ago in London by the Road Research Laboratory indicated that pedestrians were twice as safe on zebra crossings as on the road within fifty yards of them.

Mr. Page: Does my hon. Friend think that the value of the crossings might be increased by a greater use of the guard rails canalising pedestrians to the crossings?

Mr. Nugent: Those are used where they are appropriate, but in many places it would not be appropriate to fix guard rails.

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will provide figures to show whether a light-controlled pedestrian crossing has a greater or lesser effect than an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing in canalising pedestrians on to the crossing and preventing indiscriminate crossing elsewhere in the road.

Mr. Nugent: A small-scale inquiry by the Road Research Laboratory during the Slough experiment showed that in the special circumstances of Slough High Street when a zebra crossing was replaced by a light-controlled crossing the use of the crossing by pedestrians increased. I do not think it is possible to draw from these results conclusions which would be generally applicable.

Mr. Page: Why does my hon. Friend think that there are special circumstances here? Is not it clear that where there are light-controlled crossings pedestrians use them to a greater extent than they use the ordinary crossings?

Mr. Nugent: No, not always. Light-controlled crossings have the disadvantage that there is an interval of time before a pedestrian can cross and before the traffic is held up. Often pedestrians Lind a gap in the traffic before the lights have gone red against it and they nip across at that point. Then the traffic light goes red and holds up the traffic for nothing.

Programme

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in view of the fact that it takes several years between the decision to build a new road or double track an existing one, when he proposes to announce a further major programme of road construction.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): We are at present engaged on a very substantial road programme and I cannot yet say when I shall be able to announce any extension of it. Preparatory work is, however, going ahead.

Captain Pilkington: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement made by the British Road Federation that the present road traffic and congestion is growing quicker than the relief being given by the present road programme? Can he confirm or deny that?

Mr. Watkinson: The answer is that different people hold different views. I certainly do not accept that statement. We now have the largest road programme that this country has ever had, and we had better go on with it.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is not it a fact that the present road programme is for


a four-year term, and that when it expires, unless there is adequate provision now, there will be a slow-down? The indications are that inadequate preparation is being made and that there will be a slow-down because there is not sufficient work in the pipeline to ensure the programme continuing at its present tempo.

Mr. Watkinson: That is not so. I said in my original Answer that preparatory work is going on. We have established a new principle of having a reserved list of schemes, on which preparatory work is being done. The position for the future is much healthier than it has ever been.

Darlington By-Pass

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made with the by-passing of Darlington from the A.1 road; and when it is expected to commence the new road to link up with road A.19 to Sunderland from the A.1 north of Darlington.

Mr. Nugent: My right hon. Friend has made a scheme under the Special Roads Act, 1949, to establish the line of the Darlington by-pass. The Durham County Council is proceeding with the detailed preparatory work now. I am not aware of a proposal for a new road specifically designed to link the trunk roads A.1 and A.19 north of Darlington, but I expect work to start shortly on the Gateshead-Felling by-pass, which will facilitate the movement of traffic between these two roads.

London-Yorkshire Motorway

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to publish his draft proposals for the London to Yorkshire motorway.

Mr. Nugent: The proposed line for the road through Leicestershire is still not decided, and we are awaiting the further views of the County Council. I cannot at present say when it will be possible to publish our draft proposals.

Mr. Roberts: I thank the Minister for that reply. When does he expect to publish his proposals to bring the motor road into the West Riding of Yorkshire?

Mr. Nugent: First we have to decide the line.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Cargo Shipping (Demand)

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the decrease in the demand for British cargo shipping; to what causes he attributes the decrease; and what action he proposes to take to remedy it.

Mr. Watkinson: Yes Sir. The decline during the past year in dry cargo freight rates has affected shipping throughout the world. It is not the Government's policy to interfere in the commercial operation of shipping, but I am watching the position very closely.

Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware that influential people in my constituency have been suggesting that imports by the Coal Board should be restricted to British shipping? Would not this be a bad principle to adopt, not only for the Coal Board but for the nation's general shipping?

Mr. Watkinson: The principle on which British shipping has founded its prosperity in the past, as the hon. Member knows, is that we gain more out of freedom of trade and freedom of the seas than any other nation.

Troopships "Devonshire" and "Oxfordshire"

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why the troopships "Devonshire" and "Oxfordshire" are being transferred for all purposes from Merseyside to Southampton in June, in view of the effect this will have on the already high incidence of unemployment on Merseyside.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): This is a reversion to pre-war practice. There are now only six troopships in use and the work involved does not justify separate embarkation and disembarkation organisations at two ports.

Mrs. Braddock: Is not the Minister aware that this is causing very great concern in Liverpool, in view of the great increase in unemployment along


the dockside generally? Will he give further consideration to this matter? Already another ship has been moved from one of the dry docks for repair; the "Balzac" has been moved to an East European port. This is making things very difficult, and the numbers involved are increasing very considerably.

Mr. Neave: It was because of the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour about the situation on Merseyside that I made full inquiries about the number of workers employed on the maintenance of these ships. I am satisfied that it is small and that the transfer will have little effect on the activities of the port. In view of the need for economy in trooping operations, I think that this decision is justified. We have recently been able to allocate work to Liverpool in connection with the reconditioning of two L.S.T.s.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Service to South America

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give the House a more precise date when the direct air service from the United Kingdom to South America is now expected to commence.

Mr. Watkinson: It is B.O.A.C.'s intention, subject to a satisfactory financial assessment of the route at the time, to re-open a direct service to South America in the spring of 1960, which is the earliest time when Comet IV aircraft will be available for the route.

Mr. Beswick: Can the Minister confirm that the service is to be operated throughout by B.O.A.C., and not in conjunction with a subsidiary from the Caribbean?

Mr. Watkinson: I understand that it is a full B.O.A.C. service, but if the hon.

Member will put down a Question upon the matter I shall be glad to look into it.

Airport, Tees-side

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consideration he is giving to the setting up of a civil airport in the Tees-side area; and what representations have been made to him on this matter from Tees-side.

Mr. Neave: None, Sir, but two local bodies have informed my right hon. Friend of their interest, and I understand that they are investigating the possibilities of regional support for such a project. We shall, of course, consider any representations they or any other interested parties may make.

Mr. Slater: Does not the hon. Member agree that his Department should take a great interest in this matter on behalf of the Tees-side, in consideration of what it has done in the past? Is he aware that representations were made to his Department recently by a deputation from the Tees-side, led by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), regarding what should be done for the Tees-side in this matter?

Mr. Neave: The last we heard about this matter was on 28th January, when we understood from the Tees-side Industrial Development Board that the North-East Industrial and Development Association would be considering this matter. If we hear from it further we will consider its representations.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 10, page 8, lines 12 and 29, Clause 15, page 11, line 7, Schedule 1, page 16, line 18, and Schedule 2, page 17, line 35, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. John Maclay.—[Mr. Maclay.]

Question amended, by adding, at the end:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 3, line 16, Clause 3, page 3, lines 36 and 41 standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Woodburn; the Amendments to Clause 3, page 3, lines 29 and 31, Clause 7, page 5, lines 24 and 27, Clause 11, page 8, line 34, Clause 12, page 8, line 37, Schedule 1, page 14, lines 27, 32, and 50, page 15, lines 16 and 50, page 16, lines 10, 16, and 21, Schedule 2, page 16, line 23, Schedule 3, page 18, lines 41 and 45, page 19, line 8, and the new Schedule (Apportionment of General Grants) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Thomas Fraser; and the new Clause (Powers of local authorities to contribute to welfare schemes of voluntary associations) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Hoy".—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(FIXING OF ANNUAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF GENERAL GRANTS.)

3.32 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, at the end to insert:
(d) any exceptional expenditure due to any authority or authorities carrying out educational activities not common to all authorities and approved by the Secretary of State.
This Amendment relates to one of our basic objections to the machinery of the distribution of the grant contained within the Bill, especially in connection with educational expenditure. Our objection, revealed during the long proceedings which we have already had on the Bill, comes to this: we feel that the grants to different authorities, particularly in respect of education, will be related

mainly to the counting of heads within the authorities and certain other matters relating to the remote areas, and so on.
We know from the remarks of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Mr. Grimond) that they do not meet the needs of the remote areas. We feel that educational developments in Scotland are so important at this stage that the formula within the Bill is totally inadequate to meet them. It is much too inflexible and we desire, above all, to try to provide for a greater degree of flexibility in meeting the educational needs of the various local authorities in Scotland.
The building programmes for schools within local authority areas tend to fluctuate as between one local authority and another. There may be a period of five or ten years when a particular local authority is engaged on a big and extended building programme after which it may rest on its laurels for a number of years. Meantime, another local authority may be engaged in catching up on its building arrears.
Those local authorities who have been able to do a great deal of building in the immediate post-war period, when the percentage grant system was in operation, will find that there are many resulting advantages. Those authorities who have left such works until now and are engaging on big expansions of building programmes will find themselves faced with the provisions of the block grant arrangement and will experience a great difference.
One of the purposes of the Amendment is to allow the Secretary of State to give special consideration to a local authority which is engaged in exceptional expenditure on school building, due to the arrears of such building which may have accumulated over a period. We feel that the existing formula, based on the counting of heads, imposes a penalty on the educational adventuresomness of local authorities. We wish to encourage local authorities to see that education is progressive and to engage in new ideas. In Scotland, we have an education tradition of which we have some reason to be proud. It is generally agreed that we have rested on this tradition for too long and that Scotland lags behind in the newer fields of educational development.
Now the situation will be that any local authority which feels inclined to


be experimental and to give a lead in this direction will have to do so at the expense of its own ratepayers. It will not receive a fair contribution, or, indeed, any contribution, for its experiments from the Secretary of State and the central Government. Any local authority which seeks to overcome the main obstacles, put in its way by the Government, towards extending the provision of nursery schools will find that in so far as it is able to adapt existing buildings to bring such nursery schools into existence, the bill will have to be presented to the ratepayers.
Such local authorities will not be able to obtain the percentage grant which has existed up to now and they will discover that the extra expenditure on education so far as it comes within the calculation of the aggregate grant will be distributed among all local authorities in Scotland, whether they are engaged in this worth while new form of activity or not.
I am particularly interested in local authorities doing everything possible towards implementing the provisions of the 1945 Act in relation to daytime, part-time education; moving towards the day when we shall have county colleges in Scotland as was envisaged in the 1945 Act. We had this sort of provision in the 1918 Act, and it is still not yet implemented. I hope that we shall not have to wait so long after the Second World War as we had to wait after the first.
If we are to make progress, we must have local authorities willing to blaze the trail. We must have progressive local authorities willing to set an example to other local authorities. There will be a very heavy financial penalty on local authorities going in for any sort of pioneering activity. The cost of it will be dissipated in the next calculation of the general grant by being distributed among all the local authorities receiving the general grant.
There is also the question of residential schools. Many of us feel that such schools ought to be extended. Many of us consider that it would be greatly to the advantage of Scottish schoolchildren, particularly in the big cities, if at some time before they left school they had an opportunity to experience corporate life within a residential school. Glasgow Corporation, under the percentage grant system, did a good job in this respect.

Any corporation that wishes to do this now will find that it will have a heavy bill, which it will be paying through its own ratepayers. It is this kind of exceptional expenditure which I myself have in mind in connection with this Amendment.
My mind goes back to one of the most frightening things that was said about general grants during the discussion on the English Bill. There, it was pointed out that local authorities would get their share of the grant, including the share allocated to educational expenditure, whether or not they had a full complement of teachers. They would get their share of the general grant whether they were fully carrying out their educational job or not, and, therefore, there would be a great temptation to some local authorities to spend less than they ought to do on education, because they knew that they would get the money in any case, and could probably use it for other purposes.
Our desire is to give much greater flexibility in the distribution of these grants for educational purposes than exists under the Government's formula. I suggest that this Amendment gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to deal with exceptional circumstances within particular local authorities, to give them help and assistance, and also to encourage the local authorities, which Scotland so badly needs, which are willing to advance and do some of the things in education which are not generally being done, and which are willing to set an example which, sooner or later, we hope, will be followed by all the local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. A. Woodburn: This Clause is curious inasmuch as it does nothing except advise the Secretary of State what subjects he will think about before he comes to his decision. It states that
In fixing the aggregate amount of the general grants for any year the Secretary of State can take into consideration …
There is no provision in the Bill which would allow us to examine the Secretary of State's brain, after he has come to a decision, on what influenced him in reaching that decision. Of course, he is quite entitled to take into account all of the considerations mentioned in the subsection, or none of them, or anything else


not mentioned in the Bill, before he makes his decision.
We have opposed the idea of a general grant as against percentage grants, and that opposition has been mainly on the grounds that both we and the local authorities suspect that this is a cover for reducing the amount of money which the Government will contribute to the local authorities. If the local authorities get enough money to do the job, then, of course, there is no real difference in practice at the end of the day, but, assuming that the Secretary of State will be guided by this peculiar instruction that he is to take all these things into consideration, we are a little bit alarmed that he is to limit himself to consider things which only affect education authorities simultaneously, or in the same way, throughout the country.
My hon. Friends and myself see the possibility that in different parts of the country there may be developments which are analogous, but not necessarily the same. Take technical or trade colleges. Obviously, if the trade colleges in Dundee, part of which city my hon. Friend represents, teach boys the rudiments of painting and building, and things of that kind, these may not be the subjects taught in Ross and Cromarty, Inverness-shire or the Highlands, where that kind of activity may take the form of farm schools or domestic economy classes for girls.
3.45 p.m.
Therefore, I want the Secretary of State to be able, when he is taking these things into consideration, to consider certain of the needs of Scotland as a whole, but not to be debarred from considering a technical college or a special school in Edinburgh merely because it does not fit in with Ross and Cromarty or Inverness-shire. I cannot see any reason why the Secretary of State should not accept the Amendment. Its purpose is to give him a proper hint on what he should consider. He will surely be reasonable, but in case he should forget it would be advisable to have it in the Bill. It could not do him any harm, though I am sorry to say that he is not bound to pay any attention to it.
The Secretary of State should be reminded that the whole of Scotland is not one homogeneous type of population

or activity in industry and life, but that it varies from town to town, from east to west and from north to south. There should be provision for all kinds of variety in the educational needs of an area which together ought to come in as relevant expenditure. It may be that they are all spending equal amounts of money on their own varied activities, but we want to see it spent in a necessary educational fashion, and to be taken into consideration when the Secretary of State is fixing the aggregate amount of the general grants for the authorities as a whole. I support the Amendment.

Mr. J. Grimond: In so far as the Amendment will allow more flexibility in education in Scotland, I support it. I think that our system of education is fundamentally good, but that it is much too rigid already.
The general criticism of the Bill has been that, as far as counties like my own are concerned, and especially Shetland, they are to suffer severely from the change in the grant system. Incidentally, this will reverse the tendency to take into account the special needs of remote and thinly populated areas like Shetland, and also the tendency to be concerned about the less populated areas.
In the Bill, so far from getting any benefit, they are to be much worse off than before, and the loss which they will suffer will be largely due to the rising cost of education. That is the general position. What I am rather worried about is—and this is a very important matter in Shetland and in the Highland counties generally—that more attention should be given to any special needs and the development of further education in various forms. Mention has been made of the county colleges. We in Shetland have no special schools. We have no instruction in technical education of a practical sort in many ways.
As I understand the Amendment, it would allow some latitude to the Secretary of State to take this kind of need into account in areas of very low rateable value. I see an hon. Gentleman shaking his head, but I understand that to be the effect of this Amendment, though it might work either way in the administration of the Act. If I am wrong about that, I should like to be informed, but if that


is the effect then I would certainly support the Amendment, because I believe that we are in danger of treating the whole of Scotland too much as one area, and not taking into account the differing needs of different areas.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are dealing with an Amendment concerning the fixing of the aggregate grants. This Amendment can only affect the aggregate grant. If we could have a promise that the Leader of the Liberal Party will support us in our Amendment in relation to the apportionment of the aggregate grant, that point might be met.

Mr. Grimond: I understand that. This deals, first, with the aggregate amount, but it is surely a preliminary to any move in the direction I am advocating. Without this, it could not be done. That is the only point I want to make. I understand that that would be the effect of the Amendment, and I therefore think that it deserves very serious consideration.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) drew attention to the fact that some local authorities would have to spend a considerable amount of money on school buildings by way of arrears. That expenditure would be taken into account as meeting the need for developing the service. The Secretary of State for Scotland has already been taking that into account, so to that extent the Amendment would not be necessary.
The second point of the hon. Gentleman was the need for research to carry out experiments of one kind or another, but that would be relevant expenditure, and since all these projects of research are bound to be discussed with the Department it appears that in that respect also it would be taken into account as part of the need for developing the service. In any case, it would be bound to be taken into account in assessing the relevant expenditure. From those two points of view, the Amendment would not add very much to what is already in the Bill.
At one point the hon. Gentleman seemed to be trying to make the Amendment mean something that it could not mean, namely, that instead of

the amount being added to the aggregate of the general grant the particular amount representing research or buildings would be added to the general grant for the particular local authority. That would not be possible, and would not be the effect of the Amendment.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) expressed the view that there should be more certainty that developments of this kind would be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He knows as well as anyone the close touch which the Secretary of State for Scotland keeps on developments of all kinds in education. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that the developments that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind would not be taken into account in fixing the aggregate amount of the general grant.

Mr. Woodburn: What has given rise to it is that the Secretary of State seems to have imposed a limitation on himself in paragraph (b), which talks about
circumstances prevailing in Scotland as a whole.
Can we take it that that will not inhibit him when he is considering the things about which we have been talking?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, that is certainly so, but it is a different point altogether. That paragraph relates to fluctuations in the demand for the services giving rise to relevant expenditure, in so far as they are attributable to circumstances prevailing in Scotland as a whole. In the next paragraph the Secretary of State must also take into consideration
the need for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop those services.

Mr. Woodburn: Again, he has to come back to general economic conditions. We gather that everything the Secretary of State has to do is limited by general economic conditions and not influenced by developments that might not take place uniformly throughout Scotland.

Mr. Macpherson: In certain cases, general economic conditions will necessarily have an effect. For example, since 1948 there has been no extension of building of nursery schools. To that extent economic conditions, and also the needs and priorities in education, are bound to


have their effect on the application of the aggregate amount as a whole.
I can assure the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that there will be no rigidity in these matters and that the need for developing the services will be taken into account. In any case, the House of Commons will have an opportunity of considering what the Secretary of State has to take into account when it debates the Order that will have to be laid before the House to provide the general grant. There will also be laid a White Paper giving the considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account.
I do not think that the Amendment would add anything worth while to the considerations that are already prescribed in the Bill.

Mr. John Rankin: It seems clear from what the Joint Under-Secretary has said that the overall effect of the general grant will be stifling. There will be no room for initiative and experiment, which have been distinguishing features of Scottish education in the past.
Examples have been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) of the work that has been done with nursery schools and day release colleges, and the provision of milk in schools was a step in progress taken at one time by a local authority. It was possible to take those steps because of the system of specific grants. That will now be restricted. Before anything new can happen in education, it must happen all over Scotland.
One would not oppose that idea, but there ought to be room for venture. The occasional forward move has often been made in the past by one particular education committee and has become, through time, a general part of Scottish education. Now, the Joint Under-Secretary of State is telling us that the system of financing Scottish education will make that sort of thing virtually impossible in the future. He says that if any expenditure is incurred provision will be made, but that it will go into the general grant and will be spread over all the areas. The local authority taking the initiative will not get encouragement.
There should be room for advance by local authorities. Does the Joint Under-Secretary want to see this continued, and local authorities with a progressive outlook continually looking for new ventures in education because of their experimental attitude? If he does, and does not want to prevent it happening, will he say so? Does he agree with the idea behind the Amendment although its terminology may not be acceptable? Does he want to make it possible for that idea to be operated? If he thinks so, he can surely find a way of doing it. My hon. Friend would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment if the Joint Under-Secretary would give the Committee a promise that he accepts the idea contained in the Amendment and will find a way to carry it out.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: We should make it quite clear to the Joint Under-Secretary and to the Secretary of State that this Amendment is in conflict with what the Government apparently intend in the administration of the block grant. Up to now the education authority which has incurred exceptional expenditure on educational activities not common to all authorities, but yet approved by the Secretary of State, has had a proper proportion of the cost of this additional service met from Exchequer funds. That has been the position up to now.
Our concern with the block grant is that any local authority which is enterprising, and introduces something quite new which is not common to other education authorities, will have to bear the cost of this wholly on the local rates. We think that this will be a great disincentive to local authorities in making experiments, and I should have thought that it was only those experiments made by particular education authorities, followed by other education authorities, that have led to the great educational advance that we have experienced over the years.
We do not want to stifle this enterprise and initiative on the part of authorities. We want to secure that the education authority that engages in this kind of initiative and enterprise will have part of the cost of the enterprise met by grant from central funds. Let us make it quite clear to the Under-Secretary that the adoption of this Amendment by itself


would not secure that end. Of course, it would not: but if we were able to take into account this additional sum of money—the cost of these educational enterprises—and add it to the total of the block grant and then make the necessary adjustment in the Second Schedule, the Secretary of State would be able to reimburse those local authorities which have been enterprising. He would then be able to give them a grant in addition to the grant which they would get by a mere counting of heads—a grant in respect of this additional service which they have provided with the approval of the Secretary of State.
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that all the educational bodies in Scotland which have been so disappointed with his persistence in carrying through the block grant would have some small crumb of comfort if he were to accept this Amendment and undertake to make the necessary adjustment in the allocation of the block grant to take care of what is clearly in the minds of those who have put the Amendment on the Notice Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept an Amendment of this kind in Clause 2, it would seem to us that he should not take into account any expenditure of this kind in increasing the size of the aggregate general grant.
The right hon. Gentleman has limited himself in the Bill, or so it would seem, to fixing his general grant. We think that "fixing" is a rather unfortunate word to use, although it is perhaps not inappropriate in this context. In fixing the general grant we believe that he is obliging himself merely to look at the things done by local authorities in Scotland so long as they are done by all local authorities in Scotland. We think that he is limiting himself in that way. We think that it is wrong that he should so limit himself. He should be able to consider those education authorities that provide additional training for young people in industry or fit young people to go into industry—young people to whom education authorities might seek to give appropriate training, such as girls who might wish to enter the nursing profession. There are many examples that one could call to mind, such as technical colleges and domestic science.
If education authorities are to be exceptional in this field in doing something

which is approved by the Secretary of State and which might well be followed by other education authorities in years to come, we think it is desirable that in determining the total amount of money to be distributed among the local authorities of Scotland, the Secretary of State should be able to add, as it were, the cost of providing this rather exceptional service, and, having got his total augmented in this way, we would not think that he should distribute the money among all the local authorities merely by reference to counting heads. We think that at that point he should have the Second Schedule so adjusted as to enable him to give the help where the help is needed, to give assistance from central funds to a local authority which has carried through some exceptional enterprise with the approval of the Secretary of State.
I would have thought that no reasonable person could resist what we are here proposing. I have no doubt at all that education authorities, educationists and many organisations in Scotland will be deeply disappointed if the Secretary of State cannot make a minor concession in this respect.

Mr. Ross: The Joint Under-Secretary himself conceded the case for the Amendment when he went through various items and said, "They are all covered as far as we can see by the present formula." In other words, he admitted that there are services which are being carried out or would be carried out by various local authorities and which are not common to them all, and that we should not worry about them because they are included in the relevant expenditure and will be included in the aggregate grant.
In conceding that, I think that the hon. Gentleman missed the whole point, it being that this Amendment does not and cannot stand on its own. He may not like the further Amendments that we on this side of the Committee have on the Notice Paper, but we have the advantage that on recommittal, to be followed by the Report stage, we are covering not only today but also tomorrow, and I would think that, having conceded that something ought to be done about it, he has plenty of time, during the course of the next few hours, to put down an Amendment to deal with this matter.
Surely the whole position about Scottish education and the satisfaction that is given from one end of the country to the other is that each county council, each area, has provided an education demanded by regional conditions and by the traditions of the area. That is why the kind of education that is provided in Orkney and Shetland, although there may be a common basis, develops needs which are dictated by the traditions and needs of the area. The same thing applies in Glasgow and Ayrshire.
Whilst we can see that there might be some justification for the application of a block grant and aggregate grants, and probably divisions in relation to common services, there surely is no justification, having admitted that there are these services that are not common to them all, for saying that they will go into the aggregate grant. What my hon. Friend asks is perfectly fair, that
… exceptional expenditure due to any authority or authorities carrying out educational activities not common to all authorities and approved by the Secretary of State
shall be taken into account. That is to say, they shall be looked into in the course of the consideration and calculations of the relevant expenditure. That is the first step towards justice. It is to single them out.
Thereafter, in the Second Schedule, or, taking them out of the aggregate grant and disbursing them in a different way under the Schedule, the case would be met. But do not let us underestimate the fact that this is one of the great injustices of this general grant. There are local authorities which have already carried out many exceptional and progressive projects. They might be entirely governed, but the chances are that they might not be. Certainly, this will cover the future anyway.
Looking at the developments which are ahead, the Minister said, "Do not worry about nursery schools; there is a ban. No one can build them." But will that ban exist for ever? Suppose that it were raised this year. Let us consider Scotland. In every local authority area in Scotland is there some need for nursery schools? The answer is obviously, no. What will happen then is that one local authority embarking on approved expenditure for nursery schools will find that expenditure going into an

aggregate grant, and that aggregate grant being divided up amongst all the local authorities most of who have not spent a penny on this new expenditure. Is there any justice in that?
I have given only one example. I could give many others of the kind of thing that is covered by expenditure that is not common to authorities. Surely, in the calculations and in the review of expenditure note should be taken of these exceptional expenditures. That is the third first step. In relation to the aggregate grant and taking these calculations into account, these things should be noted.
Obviously, a further step must be taken if we are to do justice to the local authority that is making the expenditure. The Under-Secretary should give us satisfaction. He has conceded the point on what we are driving at. He recognises the facts and, having recognised them, he should proceed to examine our further Amendments. Meanwhile, this is a worth-while first-step Amendment.

Mr. N. Macpherson: We should be clear on the method of fixing the grant. Aggregate grant will be fixed with regard to national considerations. What I said was that my right hon. Friend is in the closest touch with developments in Scotland as a whole, and that he will take them into consideration. Developments so far have varied from locality to locality. Some local authorities have experimented in one direction, others in another. Some have experimented with farm schools, others with camp schools, nursery schools, and so forth.
What we really should envisage is a general forward-looking educational policy, such that will make it possible for all local authorities to have an expansionist outlook, to develop their education from the point of view of research and building, and bring their educational facilities up to the highest possible standards. If that gives satisfaction to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) I hope that he will rest content with that, because I am sure that that is the right attitude to take in looking at the composition of general grant.
I am certain that in view of the needs for educational development in the country as a whole, we have to look at the general developments of education


and ensure that general grant is fixed in such a way as to encourage the whole of the nation to go ahead with education, and that each separate education authority, if it does a little better than its neighbours, will be able to take full credit and say, "This is all ours."

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross rose——

Mr. Macpherson: Surely there will be the greatest satisfaction in that. That development will, in due course, go into relevant expenditure and encourage all the other local authorities.

Mr. Ross: If a local authority does a little better than its neighbour, then its neighbour will get a cut out of the general grant.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: This is exactly the argument which all the education authorities throughout the country and the Association of Education Committees have said that the Government would produce—the argument that, in general, the Government are in favour of educational advance but that if local authorities advance faster than the Government allow, then they have to pay all the money themselves. That is exactly what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education said on Second Reading of the English Bill. Paraphrasing his words, he said that if local authorities experimented, and they did more than the Government felt they ought to do, that was their affair, speaking in financial terms.
In the Amendment we are simply trying to introduce a little flexibility, just as there is flexibility in the present percentage grant system. One of the basic objections to the general grant system is its rigidity. It penalises progressive authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) pointed out that one of the great advantages of British education is the opportunity of local authorities for experimentation. Such progressive authorities as Aberdeen, for instance, are the very authorities which will be penalised under the terms of the Bill.
I am not in the slighest surprised that the Government have opposed the Amendment. It was not moved in the belief that they would accept it. From

now on the Government will pay lip service to the idea of progress in education but they will say, in effect, to the local authorities, "If you make more progress than we think you ought, the ratepayers must foot the bill."

Mr. E. G. Willis: I was not aware that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has been sacked. I was about to ask for his advice, but he has moved to the retired Ministers' bench. I am glad to see that he is now returning to the Front Bench. We may, therefore, return to a discussion of the general grant.
We have heard the Joint Under-Secretary of State twice on this subject and he has not replied to the argument which has been advanced and which is very simple: that the progressive local authority will be penalised by the Bill. In his second speech he said, "We want to encourage educational development all over the country. We want to see the development of technical and scientific education and experiments with nursery schools." But who will take the initiative if, as a reward for taking the initiative, the authority is to be penalised?
This is a peculiar Government. The good local authority is to be penalised by them; it is not to be rewarded but is to be punished if it does what the hon. Member has said the Government want it to do. Surely there is something wrong with a state of affairs where we say that we want something done but if anybody does it we punish him.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Does the hon. Member suggest that a local authority which provides the best possible service for the people in its area will be punished?

Mr. Willis: By virtue of the fact that its ratepayers will be subsidising educational development in other areas which are not prepared to undertake such development. This expenditure goes into the total aggregate expenditure, but instead of being divided amongst local authorities according to their spending it is divided in accordance with a formula in the Second Schedule, which has nothing to do with what work the local authority is doing. The backward local authority will receive a far bigger part


of the aggregate grant than it would receive if it were being paid on the basis of what it was doing.
That means that the local authority which is doing something worthwhile educationally will not receive the amount of money towards that work which it would have received under specific grants. In other words, its ratepayers will have to pay. As a result, the ratepayers in the backward local authorities may have their rates reduced. If Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen or any big local authority goes ahead, as the Government want it to go ahead, it will have the supreme satisfaction of knowing that it is subsidising reactionary local authorities. This is indefensible.
Another aspect is that the expenditure which can be included in the aggregate expenditure is limited by the fact that it must come within the terms of the 1946 Act. Educational expenditure must come within the terms of that Act under the wording of the commencement of the First Schedule. If an authority has some expenditure outwith that Act, it is not even included in the aggregate grant.
When he first spoke, the Joint Under-Secretary of State implied that this did not add very much. I do not know what he means by "very much". Surely if what it adds is worth adding, then it ought to be added. I cannot see what is wrong with that; it is logical. Even accepting the hon. Member's statement in his first speech, when he said that it might add something but not very much, surely we are entitled to say that the Amendment ought to be accepted.
The hon. Member ought to treat the arguments from this side of the Committee in a much more serious vein. For him simply to make an amiable, soothing statement which does not reply to the detailed points which have been so ably and cogently made in the speeches from this side of the Committee is not good enough.
This is a very important matter and the Secretary of State ought to reply to it. Let him tell us what he wants education authorities in Scotland to do. Does he want them to go ahead? If so, does he intend to punish them for going ahead? Will he punish the ratepayers of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Lanark, or

Midlothian because they have a progressive education policy? That is what will happen unless something on the lines of the Amendment is put into the Bill.
We ought to have a better answer to the arguments advanced from this side of the Committee.

Mr. Rankin: The Joint Under-Secretary of State hoped that perhaps what he said would meet some of the arguments which I had expressed, but I assure him that it does not. What he said underlined the fears which I have expressed. It seemed to me that he was saying that the man in Whitehall knows best. To my mind, his speech could be condensed to that statement. Whitehall is to determine the tempo of national advance in education for Scotland.
I am not opposed to the idea of having a great, national sweep forward, but we must think of the Scottish scene. Unlike the English population, the Scottish is not distributed evenly over the whole country. We have about 250,000 people living in what we call the Highland counties and a similar number living in the six or seven Border counties. Between them, in the narrow belt which lies around the Forth and the Clyde, we have 4½ million people, all engaged in industry. The demands of that sector of the Scottish community in education must be somewhat different from the other two.
For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to nursery schools. Some of us have spoken about this need throughout the passage of the Bill. The need for nursery schools in the industrial belt in Scotland is obviously far greater than in the Highland or Border counties. That also applies to another type of advance which my own education authority has made, the residential school, where boys and girls are taken for a period away from the city and educated outside. The demand for that kind of educational progress is greater in the industrial belt than in the more sparsely populated parts of our country.
The fear, which is a significant fear in our minds, is that if we are to have this stifling hand, represented by the general grant, imposed on Scottish education, then the development and the progress which has been continuing along those lines will be slowed down, because


if the advance has to be continued at the pace at which it should continue the burden on the local authorities will be too great and they will be compelled to ease off. That will be more apparent in the needs which the future will place upon those local authorities which operate in the highly industrialised areas, where we require new types of schools.
I want to commend to the notice of the Secretary of State, and of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have not read it, the article by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) in today's Glasgow Herald, which expresses the kind of view I am trying to express now. It points out that we must be thinking of new methods in education. That article puts some of them before us. They are being carried out in parts of London because the wealth is there, but they may not be carried out in the industrial belt of Scotland which needs them most because the burden of doing so will be too heavy on the education committees.
The Government's action in refusing to adopt the Amendment increases the fear that we have about the restriction of these desirable developments. I asked the Secretary of State when I spoke earlier whether that is what he wants to do. I put the question to him again: is that what he wants to achieve? Will he not realise that the Scottish population is not distributed evenly throughout the country, but that there is a great concentration in the central region? If there is to be progress and experiment in that central belt, there must be special aid for special development, such as visualised in the Amendment.
We want the Secretary of State's assurance along those lines. This is in no way disrespectful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State; we are not pushing him aside. I do not insinuate for one moment that his personal view is much different from ours. Unfortunately, he has the terrible handicap of belonging to the party to which he is attached. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which is that?"] I do not know. He was in the middle of the road and then he made a movement, but whether it was to the right or left I AM not quite sure. It seems to have been to the right. He is finding it a terrible handicap. Indeed, he and his right hon. Friend are in the same

boat. They are sinking together. They are both at sea; we want to bring them to land.
4.30 p.m.
This part of the debate now needs the intervention of the Secretary of State. He may say that this Amendment is not worth adopting, but let him rise and tell us that he agrees or disagrees with the point of view we have put forward, which is one which, without doubt, would help Scottish education. Equally without doubt, the plans of the Government will not help the content and form of educational development in Scotland. As has been said, the right hon. Gentleman has ample time to find the proper words. If he does not accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that he will find the instrument in the Schedules, he has time before tomorrow to frame the proper form of words which would enable what we are suggesting to work. I invite him to let us know his views on this matter.

Mr. George Lawson: I have been watching the Joint Under-Secretary very closely. Watching his expression and his nods I gathered that he is very largely in agreement with the intentions of this Amendment. I gathered that he thought them desirable but, perhaps, his difficulty was that the Amendment as drafted, or as proposed to be placed in this part of the Bill, would not achieve the desirable end.
I certainly had the feeling that as the hon. Gentleman has looked, listened, smiled and nodded he gave the impression that he agreed it was not only desirable but highly desirable that local authorities should do a bit more than the minimum, a little more than the national average and seek to push ahead. Those authorities which have nursery schools should be encouraged and those which have technical education should be encouraged, as also should be the authorities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), which provide holiday facilities for children from certain areas of Glasgow. All those things should be taken into account in determining the relevant expenditure. My impression is that that is what the Joint Under-Secretary now believes.
I say that he now believes that because, quite clearly, unless his words meant something different to him from what they meant to most other people, he had no such idea in his mind when he spoke in the Standing Committee on 13th March. When I quote his words on that occasion I think we shall find that he adopted a very different attitude. I want him to repudiate what he said then. The hon. Gentleman said:
If a community cares to spend more than the national average, then that is rightly a matter for the community concerned. Why should the State assist the wealthier authorities to provide more lavish facilities than the national average? If they wish to do so, then, provided that the level of national investment will allow it, they should be allowed to do so, but at their own expense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee. 13th March, 1958; c. 205.]
Clearly, what the Joint Under-Secretary was then thinking of was a national average, a general average and level. We shall come to that point again in a later Amendment. There is no room in the words he then used for experimentation by a local authority. There is no room for any special expenditure by a local authority. That he described as, "more lavish facilities". If that is not what he meant on that occasion, I hope he will tell us, but I took it clearly from what he then said.
The attitude that the hon. Gentleman now seems to be adopting, or is giving the impression of adopting, is very different from what he tried to convey on that occasion. On the basis of what he then said my hon. Friends were eminently right in putting this Amendment on the Notice Paper, because they believed that special circumstances should be taken into account.
On the former occasion, the Joint Under-Secretary made no provision for special circumstances, for the little bit better than the national average effort, as he called it, the "more lavish" effort. In effect, he said that that is a matter for local responsibility and the authority concerned would have to pay for it if it wanted that kind of thing. Has he changed his mind? If so, he will accept what my hon. Friends have been saying and make an adjustment in the Bill to meet this special effort, which he will say local authorities are not to be made to carry entirely on their own.

Mr. Woodburn: I do not know whether the Secretary of State is to say anything more about this Amendment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I will make a brief intervention. I have listened to the debate with the greatest care. Seldom have I heard more seductive and enticing speeches by hon. Members opposite in endeavouring to persuade the Government to accept their Amendments. It has extended even to a very careful study of my hon. Friend's face while he was sitting listening to the debate. I am all for studying my hon. Friend's face; it is a very good one.
On the substance of the Amendment, it is quite clear that for the immediate purpose what the Amendment itself would achieve, as my hon. Friend made quite clear, already exists within the terms of the Bill as it stands. Therefore, the only point about the Amendment is how it links up to subsequent Amendments, if they were accepted, to meet the more detailed Amendments in the minds of hon. Members opposite.
I think that hon. Members opposite would agree that they have been developing an attack on the whole principle of the general grant. The principle having been debated in full, they were going back to discuss ad hoc grants. As that argument has been gone over at various stages, we do not want to argue it over again. I repeat, in other words, what my hon. Friend said. I believe hon. Members opposite underestimate the intense desire there is everywhere to get on with a progressive improvement in our education system.

Mr. Ross: We are concerned about Clause 2 and that general desire.

Mr. Maclay: That is the whole argument that hon. Members opposite are putting forward, that the Bill would lead to stagnation. That ignores all the discussions we have had in the past and the very general mood in the country, which no Government will ignore, that there must be a progressive expansion of educational facilities. In view of all the arguments we have had on the principle, I know that they do not really expect that we should accept all the Amendments they are implying as necessary if this Amendment were accepted. As it stands alone, it would not help the Bill at all.

Mr. Woodburn: I do not think that we can regard the reply of the Secretary of State as satisfactory. He started by saying that everything was covered already and that this Amendment would not add anything, but he finished by rejecting it for what it did say. That seems to be a contradiction in terms. There is as much substance in this Amendment as in the paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
We are asking the Secretary of State to accept this Amendment to show everybody that the principles discussed by my hon. Friends and myself are in the minds of the Government and are to be con-

sidered. Probably we shall have an opportunity of discussing the other matters later, but we regard the attitude of the Secretary of State on this Amendment as very disappointing and as contrary to the feelings of every education authority in the country. They deplore the failure of the Government to take special circumstances into consideration.

We have no alternative but to register our protest in the Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 201, Noes 231.

Division No. 122.]
AYES
[4.41 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mahon, Simon


Albu, A. H.
Greenwood, Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd E.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mason, Roy


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grimond, J.
Mellish, R. J.


Balfour, A.
Hale, Leslie
Mitchison, G. R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, W.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hamilton, W. W.
Moody, A. S.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Beswick, Frank
Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Harrison J. (Nottingham, N.)
Moss, R.


Blackburn, F.
Hastings, S.
Moyle, A.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, F. W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Healey, Denis
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.


Boyd, T. C.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Orbach, M.


Brookway, A. F.
Holmes, Horace
Oswald, T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holt, A. F.
Owen, W. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Houghton, Douglas
Padley, W. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hoy, J. H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Carmichael, J.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pargiter, G. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, J.


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parkin, B. T.


Chapman, W. D.
Hunter, A. E.
Paton, John


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pearson, A.


Clunie, J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Peart, T. F.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pentland, N.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Prentice, R. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Janner, B.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cove, W. G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Probert, A. R.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Proctor, W. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Rankin, John


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Redhead, E. C.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Reeves, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reid, William


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Diamond, John
King, Dr. H. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dodds, N. N.
Lawson, G. M.
Ross, William


Donnelly, D. L.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Royle, C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edelman, M.
Lipton, Marcus
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Logan, D. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Sorensen, R. W.


Fernyhough, E.
McCann, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fletcher, Eric
MacColl, J. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Foot, D. M.
MacDermot, Niall
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Forman, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McInnes, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stress, Dr. Barnetl (Stoke-on-Trent, C)


Gibson, C. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.




Sylvester, G. O.
Wade, D. W.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Watkins, T. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Winterbottom, Richard


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wheeldon, W. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Woof, R. E.


Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Thornton, E.
Willey, Frederick
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Timmons, J.
Williams, David (Neath)
Zilliacus, K.


Usborne, H. C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)



Viant, S. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Rogers and Mr. Short.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Godber, J. B.
McKibbin, Alan


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Goodhart, Philip
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cough, C. F. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Arbuthnot, John
Gower, H. R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Armstrong, C. W.
Graham, Sir Fergus
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Ashton, H.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Atkins, H. E.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Green, A.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Baldwin, A. E.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Barlow, Sir John
Grimston, Hon. John (S. Albans)
Maddan, Martin


Barter, John
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Beamish, Col. Tufton

Marshall, Douglas


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gurden, Harold
Mathew, R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Mawby, R. L.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Bingham, R. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bishop, F. P.
Hay, John
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Black, C. W.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Braine, B. R.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hesketh, R. F.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Oakshott, H. D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Burden, F. F. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hornby, R. P.
Page, R. G.


Campbell, Sir David
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Channon, Sir Henry
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Partridge, E.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Peel, W. J.


Cole, Norman
Howard, John (Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cooke, Robert
Hurd, A. R.
Powell, J. Enoch


Cooper, A. E.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hyde, Montgomery
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Ramsden, J. E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Peter


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Redmayne, M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Remnant, Hon. P.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Roper, Sir Harold


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Russell, R. S.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Duncan, Sir James
Kershaw, J. A.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kimball, M.
Sharples, R. C.


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Kirk, P. M.
Shepherd, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leather, E. H. C.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fell, A.
Leavey, J. A.
Speir, R. M.


Finlay, Graeme
Leburn, W. G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legge-Bourke., Maj. E. A. H.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Freeth, Denzil
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Maicolm


Gammans, Lady
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, Sir Henry


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gibson-Watt, D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Teeling, W.


Glover, D.
McAdden, S. J.
Temple, John M.


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)







Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Wall, Patrick
Woollam, John Victor


Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)



Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Webbe, Sir H.
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Mr. Bryan.


Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(POWER TO REDUCE GENERAL GRANT WHERE SERVICE NOT ADEQUATELY PROVIDED, AND TO PRESCRIBE STANDARDS OF ADMINISTRATION.)

Mr. Lawson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, to leave out "reasonable" and to insert "adequate".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. S. Storey): It will be convenient if we discussed with this Amendment the following four Amendments.

Mr. Lawson: All these Amendments relate to the one point and would alter this part of the Clause to read:
if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there has been a failure to achieve or maintain adequate standards in the provision of any of the services giving rise to relevant expenditure, regard being had to the higher standards achieved by particular authorities".
The Amendments relate to what amounts to an instruction to the Secretary of State about the standards that he shall seek to maintain in the services covered by "relevant expenditure". Our contention is that, as drafted, the standard which the Secretary of State is to cause local authorities to reach and maintain is, at best, a general average standard. As the Bill is drafted, that point clearly emerges. The Clause as drafted reads:
If the Secretary of State is satisfied that there has been a failure to achieve or maintain reasonable standards in the provision of any of the services giving rise to relevant expenditure, regard being had to the standards maintained by local authorities generally …
The Amendments seek to replace the word "reasonable" with the word "adequate" and insert the word "higher," delete the words "local authorities generally" and insert "particular". When we consider these words, the meaning of our Amendments becomes clear.
As the Bill is drafted at best it says no more to the Secretary of State than that he shall maintain or cause to be maintained an average standard. My own feeling—and I am sure that my hon.

Friends will agree—is that this average standard is likely to become a minimum standard.
I now turn to a statement made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State in column 531 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee, where he talks about the Secretary of State taking action under this Clause. He says:
The conception is that if there were a manifest failure—and it would have to be a manifest failure—to reach standards considered appropriate, having regard to the codes laid down on the one hand and to the general standards maintained by local authorities on the other, the sanction would be called into operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th April, 1958; c. 531.]
Those words, as well as the wording of the Clause, clearly indicate that what is being asked of local authorities is, as I say, at best no more than that a local authority shall not fall below a general average standard. When there is an instruction that we shall not fall below general average standards, it is very likely, and, to my mind, there is a very great fear, that these standards will become lower and lower. There will be no inducement for a local authority to raise its standards above the average. If it does so, it will receive no recompense for having spent more than above the average.
The whole weight of this Clause would be such as to drive toward the maintaining of standards which, in fact, become minimum standards. I do not think that we are asking too much in our Amendment. We are not asking that the highest level reached by any given authority should be taken as a standard. We ask that the higher standard, not the highest standard, reached by particular local authorities is the appropriate standard. What we are trying to do is to enable the Secretary of State to consider a particular service and, finding that there are certain authorities that have reached a bit above the average standard, he can, on the basis of the instructions that we would have drafted into the Bill, seek legitimately and easily to bring the authorities that are below this level, the poor authorities, up to the required standard.
Let us consider the position of the Secretary of State if the Bill is passed as drafted. The instruction under which the Secretary of State operates is to maintain no more than the general average. I think it will be agreed that this will often be very difficult and that the Secretary of State will not intervene unless there is a manifest failure to reach and maintain these standards. But if our modest Amendments were accepted the position becomes quite different. He would be able to approach local authorities and say, "We want you to come up to the standards laid down". The Secretary of State and his officers would be in a position to induce progress among those authorities that are clearly behind what would be considered adequate standards.
I am sure that when the Under-Secretary considers this matter closely, he will agree that we are not asking much. Our great fear, which has arisen time after time in discussing the Bill, is that the Bill will result in a levelling down of standards. We do not want that, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want that. But, as the Bill is at present drafted, it is difficult to say that that will not be the outcome.
5.0 p.m.
I need not go into details of the various parts of the Bill. To me and to my hon. Friends, the whole basis of the Bill tends to be in the direction of penalising extra expenditure and effort. In all these local services, we want extra effort. By means of the Amendment, we are trying to put the Secretary of State in the position where he can demand a little bit better than this dead level that might mean a levelling downwards. In these circumstances, I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that he will take the model of the better—we have not said the best—local authorities and the services they render as the model upon which he wishes the others to be based. He would do this by accepting the Amendments.

Mr. Willis: These Amendments undoubtedly spring from the anxiety which the Joint Under-Secretary of State himself raised in the minds of my hon. Friends by the paragraph to which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) referred in which the hon. Gentleman explained how the arrange-

ment would work. Perhaps I might read it again to see what we are talking about. On 16th April the hon. Gentleman said:
The conception is that if there were a manifest failure—and it would have to be a manifest failure"—
that is the point emphasised by my hon. Friend—
to reach standards considered appropriate, having regard to the codes laid down on the one hand and to the general standards maintained by local authorities on the other, the sanction would be called into operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th April, 1958; c. 531.]
That is not very specific. It indicates that the sanction would not be called into operation unless a local authority had fallen very low indeed in the standards it was maintaining.
I do not know exactly what this means, and I foresee possibilities that certainly would not be welcomed by the House of Commons. First, we lay down a code of standards which local authorities are expected to achieve. Then, we judge them not by that code but by the general standard which has been achieved. Quite a number of factors might affect that general standard which is achieved throughout Scotland.
Many of us fear that the Government's financial responsibility for educational development will become less as a result of the Bill. That is a general fear throughout Scotland. I know of no educational organisation which does not share that fear. I know of no local authority, with the possible exception of Edinburgh—and I am not certain even about Edinburgh—which does not fear the same thing. Therefore if, as most people imagine, the Government's financial responsibility for educational development becomes less and they contribute less, which seems to me to be implicit in the White Paper, it is possible for local authorities not to be able to maintain anything like the standards laid down in the code. That is a logical deduction from the statement by the Joint Under-Secretary and from the possibilities that we envisage.
Even with the best will in the world, if local authorities are to be called upon to pay increasingly towards the cost of educational services, they will find it exceedingly difficult to do so with rate poundages increasing as they are. Therefore, the general standard that is achieved


at any given time in Scotland might be well below the level of the code, not because the local authorities do not want to achieve a good standard, but because the Government have been cutting down their contribution towards future educational development.
If the general standard is well below the code, the local authority that is penalised must fall still further below the general code. As my hon. Friend said, this seems to indicate that what we are doing is only to penalise a local authority which has set an exceedingly low standard. It is not an encouragement to local authorities to achieve a higher standard; we have Amendments down about that later. It is not an encouragement for any local authority to do anything other than to achieve the general standard that exists in Scotland at the time. Even according to the words of the Joint Under-Secretary himself, that general standard might be below the code laid down by the House of Commons or by the Secretary of State.
That is not a good way to legislate. The encouragement should not be given to local authorities to achieve a general average which might be exceedingly low but to achieve something better. That is what these Amendments seek to do. In other words, instead of taking the general standard as that which is generally achieved, which might be very low, we should take the standard achieved, not by one exceptional local authority, but by the better authorities. There might be a dozen which achieve the best standard. We should take that as the general standard.
We want a high standard by which to judge failure and not a low standard by which to judge it. I certainly think that the Government should consider the implications of what they are doing. The Joint Under-Secretary should take into consideration the full implications of what he said on 16th April. It certainly causes serious concern. It would be better to try to do something on the lines which we on this side suggest rather than leave the position as it is.

Mr. J. C. George: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has managed to get another kick at the general grant, this time on Clause 3. I admire the ingenuity of hon. Members opposite in continuing to attack

it when, obviously, they are out of order. The hon. Member painted a picture of Scottish local education authorities—

Mr. Willis: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that you are not capable of keeping the business of the Committee in order, Mr. Storey?

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. George.

Mr. George: The hon. Member painted a gloomy picture of the future educational progress in Scotland. He painted a picture in which the local authorities, because of the Government's failure to give an adequate general grant, pay more and more out of the rates towards education; and in consequence of that picture we see education in Scotland falling below even the general code.
The hon. Member knows that that will not happen. He knows that the general grant is so designed as to take cognisance of and to arrange for meeting all eventualities and to ensure that this country, which is so conscious of the need for an expanding educational service, will provide year after year enough to ensure that that progress will be made in Scotland. The picture painted by the hon. Member is a false one.
To return to the Amendment, the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) showed a lamentable lack of faith in Scottish education authorities. He expressed the view that the average of Scotland will probably descend to becoming the minimum, thereby implying that the zeal of local authorities is not to advance forward but to slip back into an easy way of education, getting down and down to the minimum and with no spark of effort to get forward.
The whole history of Scottish education and our local authorities has been to drive forward in education. In the last six years, expenditure in Scotland has been doubled. Surely, that is an advance. Why should local authorities, who are now sure of getting as much money as will meet their future needs—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".]—cease to take that same keen interest in advancing education in the future as they have done in the past?
This is a penal Clause to deal with the laggards. In my view, it is hardly a


workable Clause because, unless there is obvious failure over a long period, the Secretary of State would not come to Parliament to try to get the grant reduced. The general picture in Scotland will be of the vast majority of authorities providing a good system of education in keeping with Scottish tradition. In that picture, perhaps one or two local authorities—I hope none at all—which are laggard may drop behind the others and fall below minimum standards, because it is not practicable in law to prescribe anything else than adherence to minimum standards. We hope that they will rise above the minimum and that they will get up above the average. I believe that the Clause is drafted in the only possible way in which it can be drafted, and will, perhaps, with great difficulty, deal with the one or two local authorities who might be the laggards.

Mr. Woodburn: With his usual anxious desire to defend the Government, the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George), has rushed in to defend something which is quite contrary to his own spirit. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) would have been here to defend the Clause. He believes in the whip and the lash. He believes in corporal punishment as the way to get good done. This Clause is the Calvinistic, hellfire doctrine that people must be punished to make them good. We consider that to be the wrong way. As the hon. Member for Pollok said, the Clause is useless in the sense that it is punitive, and it would be extremely difficult to make a case for punishing a local authority which did not do what it was supposed to do.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has made any mistake, it has been in trying to improve the Clause and make it workable. It is a bad system altogether to preach to local authorities that if they do not do something they will be punished. We believe in encouragement. As my hon. Friend said, the Clause will represent a levelling down. This is a bad principle. The whole Clause is bad. Even with the Amendments, it will still be bad, because it is a punitive Clause. It is the wrong way to approach the development of education. We should encourage people to do better and not punish them because they do not do so well. In any case, the situation

has so many difficulties about it that I agree with the hon. Member for Pollok. It could not be worked in any sense of decency upon the educational authorities in Scotland.

Mr. William Hannan: I, too, want to address a remark or two to the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George). I was rather surprised, although I should not have been, at his ability to reprimand a Member on this side for being out of order. The hon. Member managed successfully to keep to the topic of education during the whole of his remarks, whereas education does not appear in the Clause. The Amendment is quite simple. I should have expected the hon. Member for Pollok to agree that we should use the terminology of the Bill itself. The very first of the Amendments proposes to leave out "reasonable" and to insert "adequate." "Adequate" is the kind of word which is used in the rubric to the Clause:
Power to reduce general grant where service not adequately provided and to prescribe standards off administration.
In the matter of terminology, there should be no complaint on that score.
5.15 p.m.
The second point is that the standard should be the higher standard of local authorities. I am sure we agree that it is the higher standard we should get local authorities to emulate, and that being so, there should be no objection to the insertion of the word "higher". It is not sufficient, as the Bill says, merely for the standard to be maintained. Our fear is that because of the change which the Bill makes these achievements will be impaired, and it was this which prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and my other hon. Friends to put down this series of Amendments.
We hope we have said sufficient to convince the Government that these are reasonable Amendments and should be accepted. If this can be done, it will put us in a better temper to meet some of the points which will come up at a later stage.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I am sure we all agree it is right that the Committee should be concerned with the general standards to be achieved by local authorities in education as in other matters. Indeed, subsection (2) provides that the


Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing standards and general requirements, and those regulations would be debatable in the House and would be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament. I am sure we would also agree that all local authorities should emulate the highest, but, as my hon. Friend has said, in this subsection we are not dealing so much with the general level to be maintained and observed by local authorities as with the question in what circumstances the Secretary of State will propose to the House of Commons a reduction in the general grant. That is the question with which this subsection deals.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said that we were considering an instruction to the Secretary of State as to the standards he shall seek to maintain, but that is not really the case. We are considering the question in what circumstances we should penalise local authorities for falling below reasonable standards. The endeavour to maintain standards is not confined to the use of sanctions alone. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Department of Education is organised to encourage the achievement of higher standards and to assist in that achievement.
The question is in what circumstances will the Secretary of State propose to the House a reduction in general grant. I think my hon. Friend is right, that the Minister should only propose such sanctions in the event of a manifest failure. As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, there is nothing new in this form of sanction. It exists already. Indeed, it was re-enacted by the party opposite when they were in power in regard to the equalisation grant. So, although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) may think it is a bad principle, the principle of hell fire, it is nevertheless a principle which his party has also seen fit to apply.

Mr. Woodburn: Also encouragement.

Mr. Macpherson: The encouragement is there as well. Let us consider whether the words suggested here would be better than the words proposed in the Bill. As it stands, the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to reduce the grant payable

to a local authority where it has failed to achieve or maintain reasonable standards. The Amendment substitutes "adequate" for "reasonable", and also requires the Secretary of State to have regard to higher standards achieved by particular local authorities. I sympathise with the purpose of the Amendments, which clearly is to ensure as high a standard as possible in the education and other services. But we are here dealing with sanctions in case of default, and it is more natural to penalise those who fall below the general standard than those who fall below the higher standard.
The Amendment would, in effect, divide local authorities in Scotland into two classes—the scholarship class and those, so to speak, who are brought up on the tawse, or, if you like, the stick. The Amendments, as they are drafted, would really mean that the tawse would have to be used far too often. The right hon. Gentleman, far from deprecating hell-fire, is really introducing a great deal more hell-fire into this Clause by the Amendment.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman sought in his Amendment to qualify the word "adequate" by reference to higher standards, but it would be difficult in a specific case to say whether a standard achieved was adequate. How far would a standard have to fall short of the best standard or even the higher standards in order to be pronounced adequate, or how easy or difficult would it be to convince the House that a standard was not quite adequate? That is why I said at an earlier stage that for this Clause and the sanctions to be invoked there would obviously have to be a manifest failure, because only in that case could it be proved to the House that the grant should be reduced.
The Clause gives the Secretary of State fairly clear-cut criteria, criteria of reasonable standards in relation to standards maintained by local authorities generally; that is to say, a single standard which could operate for the country. It will enable the Secretary of State to come down on a local authority whose education or other services fall unreasonably below average and so spur on the laggards, and if they go on lagging, to impose on them the sanction in this Clause. As has been said before, this form of sanction exists already. It has not had


to be imposed, and we hope it will never be imposed. It is a reserve power, but it is a necessary power. It is not a pleasant power, but we think that the terms used in the Clause as drafted will meet the need far better than the terms proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary has shown once again how determined the Government are to level down standards of education throughout Scotland. In putting forward these Amendments, my hon. Friends have demonstrated once again how anxious they are to see standards raised. On an earlier Amendment, they were anxious to secure that the education authorities which carried out the exceptional experiments would be financially encouraged so to do. That was rejected by the Joint Under-Secretary on the ground that he wanted them all to march forward in step. He thought those who carried through these exceptional experiments would be proud to feel they were doing it all off their own bat, paying for it themselves. They were to be encouraged by the Secretary of State in this forward march by the right hon. Gentleman putting lead in their boots, and they would be all the prouder of their achievements because they had marched ahead of the others with this handicap.
The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) must not be surprised that we keep on referring to the general grant. This is a general grant Bill. We know full well that some of the most laggard local authorities in Scotland stand to gain substantially from the block grant, and we thought it would not be bad if some of them were not to get the full benefit which will come to them under the system of apportionment proposed in the Bill. Also, we wanted to get a word or two from the Joint Under-Secretary as to what he hoped to get in the way of improved standards.
Having said that, I put it to my hon. Friends that we should not press this Amendment unduly. As has been made clear already, there are some local authorities which will be severely punished by the provisions of the Bill in general. I give the example of Shetland County Council, whose rates will be increased by 2s. 6d. in. the £. If that council is

forced to reduce the standard of the education service it provides as a consequence of this burden upon the rates, it would not be the wish of my hon. Friends that the Secretary of State should then step in and say that it is not coming up to the highest standard of the good authorities and, therefore, should have the grant further reduced. So we would not wish to press this Amendment for that reason, and I shall be pleased if my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw it. If he feels strongly about it, however, the Amendment can be negatived, but I ask him not to press it to a Division, because some of those authorities will not be able to achieve reasonable standards in the future for the simple reason that the Secretary of State has so reduced the financial assistance available to them that they will not be able to provide reasonable standards.

Mr. Lawson: The Joint Under-Secretary has all along resisted any suggestion that what was being written into this Clause was the minimum standard. I was being generous when I talked about average for, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) has pointed out, it can be no more than a minimum standard. So let us be honest, and let the Joint Under-Secretary be honest, too, and say that as regards this penal Clause it relates only to minimum standards. These terms are no more precise than the term "adequate" which I used, and not nearly so precise as the term "higher". So here we are putting into the Bill a Clause which will impose sanctions if certain local authorities fall below a minimum standard. There are the added words, the words of emphasis, that the sanction will be imposed only when they manifestly fall below the minimum standard. That is the position in which we are put.
The hon. Member for Pollok said that I show a lamentable faith in the local authorities. I have a lamentable faith in the party opposite. It is the type of order that is being imposed upon the local authorities about which I am concerned, and I am sure that local authorities would support me in what I am trying to put down here.

Mr. George: I said a lamentable lack of faith.

Mr. Lawson: I accept the correction. Yes, a lamentable lack of faith—in the party opposite, but not in the local authorities. Our concern has been to endeavour to raise standards and to provide words which would make it easier for the Secretary of State to do so. Since my hon. Friend has said that, in certain circumstances, this would penalise local authorities which do not deserve to be penalised. I am prepared to accept his advice and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, after "representations", to insert:
and provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that such failure is due to conditions outside the control of the local authority or local authorities concerned".
I have no doubt that this provision will never be used by any Secretary of State for Scotland in an unjust way. A man who is living under the bridges in London is very independent, but he cannot afford to spend anything. Local authorities may become very independent, but they will have no money, and the product of 1d. rate in some areas is very small.
The result is that some local authorities will not be able to reach the standards which the Secretary of State will lay down. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that he will do nothing if the failure of the local authorities is due to conditions outside their control? If the failure is not due to the local authorities and is outside their control, what steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to help them to achieve those standards?
There seems to be an impasse here. If a local authority cannot afford to undertake a scheme adequately, will the Secretary of State refuse to give it more money? If a local authority cannot afford to do something, will the Secretary of State reduce the grant still further so that the local authority will be able to afford it even less?
This is a probing Amendment in order to find out how this penalising works and how the Secretary of State measures the failure and whether he penalises a local authority by reducing its grants still further. That seems to me a most mysterious form of encouragement.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) knows the answer to this question.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

5.32 p.m.

Whereupon The GENTLEMAN-USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1958.
2. Christmas Island Act, 1958.
3. House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1958.
4. Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1958.
5. Reading Almshouse and Municipal Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1958.
6. Royal Institution of Great Britain Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1958.
7. St. James's Dwellings Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1958.
8. Port of London (Superannuation) Act, 1958.
9. University of Leicester Act, 1958.
10. Brazilian Traction Subsidiaries Act, 1958.
11. Cammell Laird and Company Act, 1958.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) (RECOMMITTED) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I think the right hon. Member will be aware of the answer I shall give in respect of the Amendment he has moved. He seeks to insert the words:
and provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that such failure is due to conditions outside the control of the local authority or local authorities concerned.
If he will look at the Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper he will see that the word "not" is omitted. I am sure that he would not wish us to accept the Amendment in its present form.
He said that he could not conceive of any Secretary of State seeking to penalise a local authority for something which was outside its control. Even if a Secretary of State did so, a local authority would then have the opportunity to make representations, and in those representations it would assuredly point out that the failure was due to reasons beyond its control, and those representations would have to be laid before Parliament along with the Secretary of State's report. So it is very hard to believe that the Commons would approve of the report in such circumstances. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will expect us to accept a quite unnecessary Amendment.
He further asked what action could be taken if a local authority could not afford to maintain the required standards. That question requires no answer, because the purpose of the general grant is to enable local authorities to maintain the necessary standards. If standards were to go down they would only do so because of circumstances outwith the control of all local authorities—possibly because of

some national disaster of something of that kind. But, in the ordinary way, given the maintenance of our economy and prosperity, there is no doubt that the intention is that the general grant should be sufficient to enable all local authorities to maintain adequate standards.

Mr. Woodburn: We have had experience of this situation in agriculture, in regard to marginal farms. We are now really discussing marginal education areas. They are similar to marginal farms which cannot be made economic in the normal way. If we introduce general legislation to make it possible for all farms to pay, it means that an enormous amount of money is given unnecessarily to the well-to-do and highly efficient farms on the good land. The Minister said that the general grant would be of such a nature as to make it possible for Shetland, Sutherlandshire and other counties with practically no rateable value to ensure a proper standard of education. If the general grant is sufficient to enable that to be done, how is the Minister going to avoid extravagance in cases where a high payment of grant is not necessary?
I agree that when the general grant is being settled these matters are taken into account, but when circumstances arise which make it impossible for marginal areas to maintain educational standards, how under the terms of the Bill can the Minister increase the grants to those areas in order to enable them to maintain their standards? What happens once the general grant is fixed? As far as I can see, the Minister has denied himself the power of compensating authorities for falling below the standards through no fault of their own.

Mr. N. Macpherson: It is difficult to conceive of any local authority being in that position, any more than one can conceive of there being only one marginal farm. The answer must be that which we have given before, namely, that the formula which is contained in a Schedule to the Bill is not necessarily going to remain exactly as it is for ever. We have undertaken to review it after a year or two, that is to say, at the time when the Valuation and Rating Act is being reviewed. That should give sufficient assurance that if the formula is working


wrongly, in such a way as to impoverish certain authorities and enrich others it will be reconsidered.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of the Minister's assurance and the fact that the word "not" has been left out of the Amendment, it would be quite impossible to insist upon its acceptance.
Since the question is not limited to the terms of the Amendment, but obviously covers a wider field, I shall seek permission to withdraw the Amendment so that we can pass on to the next one. But the Joint Under-Secretary has simply said, in rather flowery words, that the Government do not know what is going to happen in the circumstances that I have outlined, and that no provision is made in the Bill to deal with such circumstances. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter and put it right in another place.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I cannot allow those remarks to pass. Although there is no provision in the Bill to deal with the matter, we have repeatedly said that when the time comes for us to review the equalisation grant we shall review the working of the formula at the same time. That would be the appropriate time to review it.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, at the end to insert:
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that any authority has been successful in attaining exceptional and better standards in the provision of any of the services giving rise to relevant expenditure regard being had to the standards maintained by local authorities generally and considers that the general grant payable to any local authority who are responsible for outstanding work ought therefore to be increased, he may make and cause to be laid before Parliament a report stating the amount of the increase, the reasons therefor and if the report is approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may increase the grant accordingly.
I am sure that the Amendment will command the support of Members on both sides of the Committee—and especially of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) in view of his speech on a previous Amendment, when he expressed his enthusiasm

for encouraging good authorities. He will agree that in addition to the rod, which the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) advocates for the boy who does not behave himself, some encouragement should be given to local authorities which do behave themselves.
The Amendment allows the Secretary of State to be other than merely negative, and not merely to encourage local authorities by threats. When a local authority achieves something of distinction and gives a lead to other local authorities; where, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), it achieves a higher standard, it should be possible for the Secretary of State to give it a further grant to meet the cost of its extra achievements. If we are going to have a penalising Clause in respect of authorities which do not measure up to the required standards, I do not see why we should not give something to local authorities which more than measure up.
That seems to me to be a logical consequence. Therefore, I hope that when I sit down the Minister will jump up with enthusiasm and accept the Amendment. For the life of me I cannot see why, logically, it should not be acceptable to him and to all other hon. Members. I am sure that it would inspire local authorities to do their best. One of the complaints of my hon. Friends is that the Bill at present operates to penalise the authorities who do well while providing some sugar for those who do not do so well. It should work both ways. I am a great believer in claps on the back rather than kicks in the pants, and the effect of the Amendment is to add a clap on the back to the Secretary of State's proposals to give kicks in the pants.

Mr. George: I readily rise to support what the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has said. I also read the Economist, and I have read what it suggested. The Bill should be not merely negative but also positive. If we have Clauses which penalise the laggards, we should provide rewards for those with outstanding achievements, whether in matters of organisation or public expenditure, which enable them to reduce the size of classes, to conduct researches and bring out new methods, or improve the general results of education. It is possible for active and diligent local authorities to raise their standards and


act as a guide to the other areas of Scotland, and if they can do so I think that they should be given some reward by way of a higher grant.

Lady Tweedsmuir: This is an important Amendment because it seems to apply to such cities as Aberdeen. I should like to say a few words about the ideas expressed in it, although I do not think that its terms as proposed by an ex-Secretary of State, provide a very practical method of administration.

Mr. Willis: Always an escape.

Lady Tweedsmuir: It seems to me that under the terms of the Amendment reports would come in from all kinds of local authorities and they would then have to be laid before the House, when each would have to be debated in its turn. That seems to be a very lengthy procedure.

Mr. Woodburn: I had perforce to accept the guidance of the previous Clause as to the method I should adopt. I thought that in order to be absolutely sure about the draftsmanship I could do nothing better than accept the Secretary of State's method as a model.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I now say, with deference to one Secretary of State and one ex-Secretary of State, that this does not seem to be a very practical method.
However, I want to seize this opportunity of saying something about the provision as it affects Aberdeen. In many ways this would have been more suitable in a discussion on the Schedule, in which I had hoped to take part in Committee but was unfortunately guillotined. It is the formula in the Schedule which affects the financial provisions and is the most important factor in this Bill. Hon. Members will understand the difficulty in which I find myself. During the Second Reading debate I said that I supported the Bill as a whole because it undertakes certain principles in which I have believed all my political life. On the other hand, there is the constituency and the personal problem. As I can make out, under this Bill, in the second year of its operation, Aberdeen will not benefit in the way in which to my mind it should.
6.0 p.m.
This I think is an example of the kind of personal decision which comes before Members of Parliament all the time. We are always having to say to ourselves that we must think of the greatest good for the greatest number; but, obviously, some have to be hurt in order to achieve that end. My problem is that Aberdeen which, to my mind, is the cradle of education in Scotland, will bear the major burden of securing that good which we believe will be done to the many. As I have said before, I think that the various transitional arrangements in the Bill in the first year are satisfactory. I entirely support the Secretary of State in his decision not to wait for revaluation for the reasons which he gave. I think it is a very complicated Measure and we should do well to gain certain experience before revaluation.
However, there are some things about which I hope the Secretary of State will give us yet further assurances. I appreciate that he has already done so on various occasions. It seems to me that the best way we can get over the problem which undoubtedly exists is not by one Amendment now. I think that the transitional arrangements will have to be reviewed——

Mr. Willis: The noble Lady was a member of the Standing Committee when we suggested the same thing.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Certainly, that is quite true. But I have thought over it for some time and I do not think that the proposed Amendments were the best.

Mr. Ross: Dear, dear!

Lady Tweedsmuir: I know that the formula in the Schedule for assessing the grant was agreed to by a working-party but, as the Joint Under-Secretary has said, before revaluation we have to ask that this matter be looked at again.

Mr. Ross: Why did not the noble Lady put down an Amendment?

Lady Tweedsmuir: This is not the kind of thing which, in my view, can be done by Amendment in this Committee. I do not think we are capable of putting down an Amendment altering a Schedule which is a very complicated matter——

Mr. Ross: Really!

Lady Tweedsmuir: Hon. Gentlemen opposite may find my speech very dull, but at least they might listen to it——

Mr. James H. Hoy: It is a long-drawn-out alibi.

Mr. James McInnes: If the objective cannot be achieved by way of Amendment in this Committee, will the noble Lady indicate how it can be achieved?

Lady Tweedsmuir: That intervention bears out my contention, that hon. Gentlemen are not, alas, listening to my speech.
The main part of this Bill is the formula in the second Schedule which was, I understand, agreed by a working party and I do not think that we as hon. Members of this House have the skill sufficient to alter it by way of Amendment.

Mr. Ross: That is nonsense.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The Joint Under-Secretary of State made a valuable statement to the effect that he is undertaking to see that the formula is reviewed. I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to do so.

Mr. T. Fraser: The noble Lady has said that she understands that this formula was agreed by a working party. Surely she knows that all that happened was that the Secretary of State decided that there must be a general grant system and he got some of his officials to call some local government officials together to see how best they could allocate a general grant? They looked round to find a formula and ultimately they produced a formula which the officials of the Secretary of State were able to recommend to the right hon. Gentleman. Surely the House of Commons is superior to a working party of officials collected together by the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Lady Tweedsmuir: The point made by the hon. Gentleman is one which needs a lot of consideration. I do not think that Members of Parliament, in a debate in this Chamber, can undertake such an important task as the alteration of a formula put before the Secretary of State for his approval. I understand the procedure is that when it is found—as I think is the case here—that a formula will not carry out the purposes of a Bill, it is,

from the administrative point of view, incumbent on the Secretary of State to ask for more guidance and more solid work to be done on the matter.

Mr. Ross: Oh dear!

Lady Tweedsmuir: I understand from the Joint Under-Secretary that that is what is to happen.
Reverting to Aberdeen, it is true that in the years ahead—I suppose, even under the present formula—the situation will even out. But the fact remains that now, because of the advanced stage of its education programme, Aberdeen—which I submit is a city in an exceptional position—is getting exceptional treatment of an unfavourable kind. I appreciate what I consider to be the very real efforts made by both the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary to examine the particular position of Aberdeen——

Mr. Willis: Really. How was that done?

Lady Tweedsmuir: Hon. Members may know that a great deal can be done by personal representation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I appreciate that the object of the transitional arrangements is to give time to review the anomalies created by the present formula. I cannot pretend that I am happy about the present situation, and were there to be a straight vote on the Second Schedule, I should be forced to abstain.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the Committee are delighted that the noble Lady has now joined us in making representations to the Government about the position of Aberdeen. She will recollect that we made the best efforts we could in her absence during the earlier discussions on this Bill——

Lady Tweedsmuir: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? I was present during the Committee stage discussions although I did not see fit to speak. I had already made by position perfectly clear during the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Thomson: I accept the remarks of the noble Lady, though I think it was a little ungallant of her to use the Guillotine imposed by her own Government as an alibi for not dealing with this matter. However, we were more than


compensated by her intriguing revelations of what has been going on behind the scenes between the noble Lady and the Secretary of State. We await further revelations with interest.
We have been tremendously encouraged by the fact that the first two speeches from hon. Members opposite following the moving of the Amendment have been in support of it. I hope that we shall learn from the Secretary of State that he proposes to accept the Amendment. It is particularly encouraging, because of the expressions that we had from the Joint Under-Secretary a short time ago referring to another Amendment which I moved, and which had a similar sort of motive as the present one. We have been trying, assiduously and conscientiously, to make the best of a bad job with this general grant, and to try to introduce some flexibility into it; in particular, to try to look after those local authorities, such as Aberdeen, which have been particularly enterprising and progressive, and looked after the interests of their citizens, and who now stand to be penalised under this block grant arrangement.
When answering a point made earlier I think that the Joint Under-Secretary gave the game away from the Government's point of view. He tried to claim that the Government were interested in the general progressive advance of local authorities particularly in education. But when he was pressed about the matter the hon. Gentleman said, "Well, if a local authority is particularly progressive about education and does something which other local authorities are not doing, then it ought to be satisfied with getting the credit for that." Our objection is—I hope it will be shared by hon. Members opposite—that such a local authority not only gets the credit for any new arrangements it makes, but it also gets the entire bill.
We wish to make sure that where a local authority is progressive and enterprising, the Government shall pay their share of the bill as they have done in the past. So far as I can understand his case, the Under-Secretary defended his position in this way: that one did not need to make special arrangements for local authorities which have been particularly enterprising, because the Government believed so much in general

expansion that it would fix the aggregate grant at a level which would allow education to move forward on all fronts.
The hon. Gentleman will excuse us for not accepting that view when advanced from the Government benches. Our scepticism, as his political opponents, may be understood, but, in addition, he must accept the fact that all the local authorities, particularly those interested in education in Scotland, are equally sceptical when the Government make that kind of general statement of a beneficent intention towards Scottish education.
We, the local authorities, and Scottish educationists want an assurance written into the Bill that the Government will make an effort to encourage local authorities faced with special difficulties, or authorities which may make special efforts. So far, the Government have resisted all attempts to achieve this.
What will happen under the present arrangement is that if a local authority, like Aberdeen, is particularly progressive, or if, as in the case of Glasgow, it engages in some pioneering educational activity, the expenditure on that will be calculated for the purpose of the general grant for the whole of Scotland and be distributed among all the local authorities in Scotland. The Minister seems to believe that this is a method of encouraging other local authorities to be more progressive in their educational expenditure. This would be rather cold comfort—even were it true—to those corporations who are having to present bigger and bigger bills to their ratepayers because they are forced to do so by this Government.
But it is not true. If Aberdeen goes ahead and spends a great deal more money on some new and progressive educational activity, in due course all the other local authorities will get the same financial advantage for the extra money that the ratepayers of Aberdeen are having to pay. But many of these other authorities will not spend that money on following the noble example of Aberdeen and blazing the educational trail ever upwards. They will use the money to reduce their rates.
This is what will happen unless we have this kind of provision in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that we shall get a favourable response from the Secretary of State towards this Amendment. Here


the right hon. Gentleman has a unique opportunity. In Glasgow, there is a well-known award called the St. Mungo Prize. This Amendment of my right hon. Friend provides the Secretary of Stale with an opportunity to immortalise himself by providing what might become to be known in the future as the "Maclay Prize" for local authorities who show particular enterprise. Local authorities could compete with each other in new and more enterprising forms of educational pioneering, and, at the end of the year, they might qualify to receive the "Maclay Prize".
The Secretary of State, if he has any time left, might well go on a tour of Scotland, awarding the prize to local authorities which, under this Clause, have been able to——

6.15 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: Would it not be rather ironical if the winner of the prize happened to be the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir)?

Mr. Ross: That would not be ironical; it would be a miracle.

Mr. Thomson: I am more than willing to see the Secretary of State being called upon to pay tribute to Aberdeen in that way. Perhaps he might invite some of his colleagues from a little further south to enjoy the ceremony.
I am sure that the noble Lady will agree with me that Aberdeen has been a notably enterprising authority in the field of education, but that, as one of my hon. Friends reminds me, it is controlled by a Labour majority. It is notably enterprising. Most of the arguments about what constitutes enterprise in education come down to the forum of political controversy. People who advocate it call it a notable advance, while the people opposed to it say that these are "lavish frills".
The Under-Secretary used the word "lavish" and it was quoted by my hon. Friend during the Committee stage. The whole history of educational advance in Scotland has been that the "lavish frills" of today become the normal standards of tomorrow, and authorities like Aberdeen, which are trail-blazers in this way, will be penalised under the Bill. Unless

the Minister accepts this Amendment, or something similar, which will guarantee special treatment for those authorities engaged in progressive work, he will penalise them. If he is to hold down the whole pace of educational advance in Scotland, if he is to say that all pioneering is to be paid for entirely by local ratepayers, they will find that a particular burden.
I hope that, in view of the support which this proposal has obtained from both sides of the Committee, the Government will accept it.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I certainly admire the pertinacity and the ingenious endeavours of the Opposition to find a way in which we could give some recognition to the local authorities which reach out to new or higher standards, but I do not think that the idea of a St. Mungo Prize or a St. John Prize would meet the case. I think that the Committee must face the fact that there are some serious disadvantages in this suggestion. It is never very easy to fix standards capable of attainment by all local authorities, but it is certainly far more difficult to decide whether a local authority's performance had been sufficiently exceptional to justify, as it were, a bonus.
The second objection is this. The judgment involved would place the Secretary of State in an extremely invidious position. He would have to decide that a local authority had done so much better than other local authorities as to deserve a prize. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that there is an essential difference between a carrot and a stick in this case, because whereas there will not be many candidates for the stick, there will be an extraordinary number of candidates for the carrot. It will be extremely difficult for the Secretary of State to award the carrot or carrots.
I suggest that, as we have a number of different subjects covered by the general grant, and within each subject a number of different branches, the time of the House would be taken up quite substantially in considering Orders that might be laid before it under this subsection. In any case, it might happen that the circumstances relating to a particular service were unusually favourable in one area, and that the local authority's task in achieving a higher standard than elsewhere had been correspondingly easier.


In general, it would involve comparisons between local authorities, and comparisons are notoriously odious.
The third reason which we should take into account is that it is not too clear exactly what the Amendment contemplates. There are two possibilities. One is that the bonus should be provided at the expense of other local authorities, and the other that it should be added to the aggregate general grant. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that this would be something that could be given on its own, outside the scope of the general grant altogether, but, with respect, I suggest that that would be outside the scope of the Bill, and could not be done.
The total of the general grant, as the Committee knows, will be fixed for the country as a whole, and will then be divided among local authorities in accordance with the distribution formula, so that it would certainly not be fair to penalise a local authority which had complied with all the relevant standards for no other reason than that another local authority had been able to do better.
The right hon. Gentleman may have regarded this Amendment and a previous Amendment which has been rejected as complementary, but we have rejected the previous one, and that would, therefore, mean that there would be no way out of it. It would have to be taken away from the general grant available to other local authorities, or, alternatively, if it is intended that the bonus should be added to the general grant, then a further Amendment would be required to give the bonus to the local authority concerned over and above its share of the grant under the formula. Otherwise, as the Bill stands, it would simply be shared by all local authorities. To give an extra general grant would be quite inconsistent with the principle of distributing the general grant according to objective factors relating to local need.
There is a final objection, which, again, derives from the whole foundation of the Bill. I suggest that the Opposition are not giving sufficient credit for the general urge towards improvement. It is an urge that comes do many ways. It comes from the teachers themselves, it comes from the inspectors, it comes from the parents as well, and it comes also

from the county councils and education authorities as a whole. It seems to me that the Amendment proceeds on the rather cynical assumption that a local authority's determination to provide services depends more on its anxiety to receive a further subvention than from its concern for the welfare of its citizens.
We on this side of the Committee do not believe that that is true, and we do not believe, either, that there are only one or two local authorities which will make progress and be in advance of the others. We believe that there will be a general surge forward in education, and that is the reason why we do not think it is necessary, even if it were desirable, to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman committing a breach of the promise in the arrangements between the Secretary of State and the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir)? Is this a breach of the promise made behind the scenes that we heard about?

Mr. Macpherson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend has not confined her approaches to the Secretary of State, but that she has made representations to the Joint Under-Secretaries of State very frequently as well.

Mr. Willis: With reference to the last remarks of the Under-Secretary, when he spoke about local authorities being willing to spend money, is not part of the Government's case against specific grants the very fact that local authorities tend to spend without a due sense of responsibility because there is a specific grant? What then becomes of the last argument which the hon. Gentleman has been advancing? This is important.
The hon. Gentleman said that the general grant will still encourage local authorities to spend money in the same way as they formerly spent it because of the great urge for improvement. If that argument is true, is not the Government's argument about the spending of money by local authorities without a due sense of responsibility, because they automatically receive a 60 per cent., 50 per cent., or 40 per cent. grant, really nonsense?

Mr. Macpherson: If the hon. Gentleman will look at what I said tomorrow,


he will find that I did not say that the general grant would encourage local authorities to spend more money. What I was saying was that the urge to develop the services is there, and that the general grant will be adequate to enable them to develop them.

Mr. T. Fraser: That is exactly the point. The Under-Secretary has said that there is such an urge to get ahead with the expansion of these services that local authorities will go ahead with that expansion, notwithstanding the discouragement of the general grant. That is what he said.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No.

Mr. Fraser: I agree that it not what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is the only meaning of what he said. I will take it more slowly. The Joint Under-Secretary said that there will be such a desire on the part of the local authorities in Scotland to expand their services, particularly in education, that we shall get an expansion of educational services on a wide front. I think he would agree with that. What I am saying is that that surely means that cities like Aberdeen will continue to expand, notwithstanding the fact that the assistance they will get from central funds will be less than they have enjoyed hitherto.
We realise that that was the case made for the introduction of the general grant. It is that the specific grants are objectionable, in that local authorities have gone ahead with the expansion of their services in an irresponsible way, because they have the knowledge that they were to get a substantial payment from central funds. Is that right or is it wrong? I think that what I have said is right. I think I have correctly repeated what the Joint Under-Secretary said just now, and what the Secretary of State himself said on an earlier occasion. Of course, if what I have said stands up, and I think it does, it must make nonsense of any promise which the Secretary of State made to the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) behind the scenes. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is going to tell us later on what promise was made to the noble Lady. We were very interested to learn that the Under-Secretary was not to be left out in the cold. He, too, had been approached by the noble Lady, but,

apparently, he did not make any promise. At least, we were informed that he had made no promise.
The Under-Secretary spent his time in the speech which he has just made stating the objections which he and the Secretary of State had to equity in the payment of Exchequer grants. Of course, it would be good to be able to encourage enterprising local authorities to expand their services, but there would be so many candidates. Does he regret that there will be a lot of candidates? Does he regret that there will be candidates for this suggested bonus for the excellence of the services which they are providing?
6.30 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary does not want applications rolling in for the prize for excellence. He wants to squeeze them all down to a minimum uniform standard. I should have thought that that argument is not one that he would take, let alone make, very seriously. He knows that there are not so many candidates for the prize for making special endeavours. If there are, they cannot all be making a good case for showing excellence above the standard laid down by the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the standards laid down by the Secretary of State are too low and he has to raise them.
We are seeking to give due reward to education authorities like Aberdeen, who have done a good job, with the approval of the Secretary of State, and under contract that he will pay 60 per cent. of the cost and the local authority will pay the other 40 per cent. Now the contract is being torn up by the Secretary of State without consultation with Aberdeen. The Joint Under-Secretary said that it would be difficult to measure the excellence of authorities that had achieved something outstanding. I asked him during the Committee stage how he would measure the achievement of those who were to be penalised under the Clause. He could not tell us how to measure the failure of the defaulters.
Apparently, the Secretary of State believes that it is necessary to have power to assess the measure of failure of defaulters so that he can impose a penalty under Clause 3. I should think it quite as easy—I am not saying that it is very easy—to measure success as to measure


failure. We know that Aberdeen has been successful. The Joint Under-Secretary was concerned upon an earlier Amendment that we were trying to make the stick heavier, but now we are trying to balance the stick with a bit of carrot. Why does the Joint Under-Secretary want the stick without the carrot? Is there any reason why a local authority that gives exceptional service should not be rewarded? It has been rewarded up to now.
If the Secretary of State for Scotland can find no other way of reaching an accommodation with the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South, he can withdraw the Bill altogether. Aberdeen will then be saved from its difficulties. The hon. Lady was most concerned that the right hon. Gentleman should find a way out. She was sure it could be done. She referred to the report of the working party. We have not seen the Report. I cannot get the report of the working party, which was set up to undo on behalf of the Secretary of State some of the damage he did by introducing the block grant in the first place. The damage was caused by the Secretary of State and is being caused by the Bill. Perhaps I should say that it has not yet been done. It will be done if the Bill becomes an Act.
The noble Lady will have her opportunity of speaking up for her constituents and voting for them if she does not get the concession for which she is asking. She can do so on the Amendment now, or on any other Amendment before we reach the Third Reading. Hon. Members can easily get out of their constituency difficulties by voting against the Third Reading of the Bill. I wonder whether they will match their convictions with their votes at the end of the day.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I thought I made it clear that the principle behind the Bill is one that we have supported all through our political life. We believe that the Bill will benefit Scotland. The particular difficulty is a constituency problem arising out of what will be a good Bill for the whole country.

Mr. Fraser: I do not think there is any principle behind the Bill. There is a purpose behind the Bill, and if the hon. Lady agrees with it she ought not to have made that speech on behalf of Aberdeen.

The principle is to reduce the contribution made by the central Government towards the provision of local authority services. If she supports that purpose, let her not make speeches to persuade the Secretary of State to modify the purpose of the Bill in its application to her own constituency.
The Under-Secretary said that he could not accept the Amendment. His objection to the equity argument was that comparisons were odious, but what is the purpose of Clause 3 if not to make comparisons? It is the Secretary of State who is asking us to compare and to make comparisons. Is not the whole purpose of Clause 3 to enable the Secretary of State to make comparisons? He is asking for power to pick out authorities—those which have not done as well as most—and to punish them.
We suggest that he should also have the power to pick out those who have done the best, and to reward them. There cannot be anything wrong with that. The school teacher does not only have the tawse; she also gives prizes. We cannot avoid making comparisons; the hon. Lady made comparisons between Aberdeen and the rest of Scotland. We cannot agree with the Under-Secretary that comparisons are odious.

Mr. N. Macpherson: We have made it clear that this particular sanction has not been applied in the past because it has not been necessary to do so. The Amendment envisages, on the other hand, that wherever an exceptionally better standard is attained there should be an advantage. It is not the same thing and is not comparing like with like.

Mr. Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary of State cannot be quite so stupid as not to know that up to now it was not necessary to have a special provision in the Act to reward an authority that did well It automatically got its extra grant. It had 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the cost of its services provided from central funds. The Under-Secretary has argued that such an authority will be able in the future to experience great pride in the fact that its exceptional achievements have been financed entirely out of the pockets of its own ratepayers. It will not only pay the whole bill itself but, as the scheme will work out, it will be subsidising laggard authorities.
The final objection by the Under-Secretary of State was that the special grant would either have to be given from within the general grant or as an addition to the general grant. If it were within, an inadequate amount of general grant would penalise other authorities. If it were outside, it would be outside the Bill, but the Secretary of State is taking power in the Bill to make grants outside the general grant.
The Chair normally guides us as to whether a matter is within the scope of a Bill or not. The Chair has apparently ruled that the Amendment is within the scope of the Bill. We must not be influenced by the suggestion made by the Under-Secretary that what we are asking is outwith the scope of the Bill. Should the Amendment be carried, it will be in the Bill and it cannot be outside the scope. All we have to do, therefore, is to pass the Amendment and it will be in, and the Under-Secretary will lose his objection that the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.
The truth is that the Secretary of State is determined to level down the standard of services in Scotland to a minimum. The purpose of the Bill, or at least the effect, will be a levelling down and that is why local authorities have always been against it. I know there is one notable exception. Edinburgh, which is to get about £650,000 more out of the general grant than from the specific grants. There will be no question of levelling down for Edinburgh in the immediate future. The remaining local authorities take the view that the Bill will lead to levelling down. We are trying to save the Secretary of State from the disaster he is bringing upon the local authorities of Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman must know that it will not be very difficult to measure general excellence in the provision of services. Take education. He will know how Edinburgh has got on with reduction in the size of classes. He lays down the code to which they have to aspire. He will know how many of them are within the code and how many are not. He will be able to measure and find how adequate the service is, how successful an education authority has been in reducing the size of classes, providing secondary education or technical education.
The Minister will have no difficulty in determining whether an authority has done well or done badly. In fact, he will have a duty to keep a check on whether it has done well or badly. If he wishes to reward those who have carried out the wishes of Parliament and provide an adequate service for the people they serve, he will do this. If he does not wish to reward them, he will not do it. I think that he does not wish to reward them, but I hope he will prove me wrong by saying that he accepts the Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: There are a few remarks I should like to make arising out of this interesting discussion. Once again, I am impressed by the ingenuity and skill with which hon. Members opposite are trying to make their Amendments attractive.
Although I was not very active in those affairs, I have learned that when earlier local government Bills were passed, on every one of them, the 1929 Measure and earlier ones, a great many people, mainly in the Opposition, were convinced that it would be disastrous to local government. Years have gone by and everyone has found that those Measures have not been disastrous but each, in turn, has made a great improvement. It is rather like saying that a Secretary of State has a slight chance of having a better reputation after he is dead than while he is alive. It is the same with these Bills.
In the long run they have proved good. I would hazard a guess that, in general, this Measure will be viewed as a general advance. As my noble Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) said, the principle is something in which many of us have believed for a long time. The principle is that of getting more responsibility into the hands of local government.

Mr. Ross: What has this to do with the Amendment?

Mr. Maclay: I am going to talk about the Amendment. The Amendment has been ingeniously used to make another attack on the principle of the Bill. That is what all the speeches by hon. Members opposite have been directed towards. I need not go through all the details of the practical problems involved. Even if all those practical difficulties could


be overcome in some way, and one could discover how to award the prizes and do all the things which go along with the prizes, the principle of the Bill would be prejudiced. That principle must be in line with the principle of general grant.
It is too often forgotten that the object of local government must be to meet local need. The more it is possible for local authorities to make their own assessment of their need, the better it will be for our whole democratic principles. That is the substance of the whole argument. If one follows the proposals implied by this Amendment one finds it is just another way of trying to get a return to another form of ad hoc grant.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is a right and proper thing for a local authority to make an assessment of its own need. Is he keeping in mind the fact that the vast majority of Scottish local authorities made an assessment of the Bill and turned it down?

Mr. Maclay: I am referring to my remarks that in the past people have said that such a Measure was worse than it has since proved to be. In reply to my noble Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, I repeat what I think I have said in this House, and certainly in conversation with her and other hon. Members, not only on this side of the Committee, that we have until 1961, when it will be possible, and obviously desirable, to review the working of the formula. I cannot forecast what the result of that review will be, but it is clear that with revaluation and two years' working of the Bill it would be incredible if we did not then study it to see whether there is any possible method of improving it.
There is no question of jealousy between my hon. Friend and myself with regard to approaches made by anyone. We are always willing to listen to representations made to us. I hope that what I have said will convince the Committee that this Amendment, if accepted, would be extraordinarily difficult to administer with fairness and would be a direct contradiction of the principle of the Bill, in which we believe. I must, therefore, ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: I am disappointed with the Secretary of State. This Amendment is so reasonable, as is agreed by hon. Members opposite. The Under-Secretary put forward a whole lot of imaginary objections. He pictured a lot of applications coming from local authorities for extra money, but is there anything in the Amendment about that? Can the hon. Gentleman say that there is anything in the Amendment about local authorities making applications for extra grants?

Mr. N. Macpherson: They would.

Mr. Woodburn: I do not know whether they would or not, but it is not provided for in the Amendment. This Amendment adopts the same principle for encouragement as the Secretary of State has laid down for penalising local authorities. It says that
… if the Secretary of State is satisfied that any authority has been successful in attaining exceptional and better standards in the provision of any of the services giving rise to relevant expenditure regard being had to the standards maintained by local authorities generally and considers that the general grant payable to any local authority who are responsible for outstanding work ought therefore to be increased, he may make and cause to be laid before Parliament a report stating the amount of the increase.…
If the Secretary of State believes that, is there any reason why he should not be empowered by the Bill to do something about it? That is all we are asking; there is no compelling in the Amendment. There is no "shall" in the Amendment; we forgot to put a "shall" in. It is entirely a matter for the judgment of the Secretary of State. It gives him power to do good to people as well as to punish them.
The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have accepted that as a reasonable proposition. The reasons given for rejecting the Amendment are fully imaginary. Because of some arrière pensée by the right hon. Gentleman he believes that, somehow, it would destroy the principle. The principle is established by the Bill. He has made provision to meet exceptional circumstances. We are saying that those exceptional circumstances on the good side ought to have provision made for them the same as for exceptional circumstances on the bad side. That seems so reasonable as to be quite incontrovertible.
Neither the Secretary of State nor the Joint Under-Secretary has made any case against the Amendment. They made a case against something which does not exist in the Amendment. In any court of law what they said would not be considered to be consistent with the discussion. They have not replied

to the argument, nor shown any reason why this Amendment should be rejected. We shall certainly register our support for the Amendment in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 165, Noes 204.

Division No. 123.]
AYES
[6.54 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Healey, Denis
Paget, R. T.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss M.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Parker, J.


Balfour, A.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pearson, A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Holmes, Horace
Peart, T. F.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Houghton, Douglas
Pentland, N.


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (All saints)
Prentice, R. E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hoy, J. H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hubbard, T. F.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, A. R.


Boyd, T. C.
Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W. T.


Brockway, A. F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Redhead, E. C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carmichael, J.
Janner, B.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Clunie, J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sorensen, R. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cove, W. G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stones, w. (Consett)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, G. M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Cronin, J. D.
Ledger, R. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Swingler, S. T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Donnelly, D. L.
McCann, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
MacDermot, Niall
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McInnes, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edelman, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thornton, E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Timmons, J.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Eric
Mahon, Simon
Watkins, T. E.


Foot, D. M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Weitzman, D.


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd E.)
West, D. G.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mason, Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mellish, R. J.
Willey, Frederick


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, David (Neath)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Grey, C. F.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moss, R.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grimond, J.
Mulley, F. W.
Winterbottom, Richard


Hale, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hamilton, W. W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Woof, R. E.


Hannan, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Harrison J. (Nottingham, N.)
Oram, A. E.



Hastings, S.
Oswald, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.
Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Barter, John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel


Alport, C. J. M.
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Bishop, F. P.


Arbuthnot, John
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Black, C. W.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Body, R. F.


Ashton, H.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.


Atkins, H. E.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Baldwin, A. E.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Braine, B. R.


Barlow, Sir John
Bingham, R. M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.




Brooman-White, R. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hornby, R. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Page, R. G.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Campbell, Sir David
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Partridge, E.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howard, John (Test)
Peel, W. J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hurd, A. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Pitman, I. J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hyde, Montgomery
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Deedes, W. F.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Ramsden, J. E.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rawlinson, Peter


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Duncan, Sir James
Keegan, D.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Roper, Sir Harold


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kershaw, J. A.
Russell, R. S.


Errington, Sir Eric
Kimball, M.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kirk, P. M.
Shepherd, William


Finlay, Graeme
Leather, E. H. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fisher, Nigel
Leavey, J. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fletcher-Cocke, C.
Leburn, W. G.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Foster, John
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gammans, Lady
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Glover, D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Godber, J. B.
McAdden, S. J.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gough, C. F. H.
Macheson, Brig. Sir Harry
Teeling, W.


Gower, H. R.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Temple, John M.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Green, A.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maddan, Martin
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Gurden, Harold
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.



Marshall, Douglas
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Mathew, R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mawby, R. L.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hay, John
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Moore, Sir Thomas
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. C.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Woollam, John Victor


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)



Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Oakshott, H. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Bryan and Mr. Hughes-Young.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(RATEABLE VALUE OF INDUSTRIAL AND FREIGHT TRANSPORT LANDS AND HERITAGES.)

Mr. McInnes: I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, to leave out "doubled" and to insert "trebled".
Perhaps we could discuss at the same time the following Amendment, in page 5, line 27, to leave out "two" and to insert "four-thirds".
The Amendments are designed to achieve the rerating of industry to the

extent of 75 per cent. rather than the 50 per cent. provided in the Bill. In Committee, we endeavoured by Amendments to rerate industry to the full extent of 100 per cent., but this evening we have rather reluctantly tried to split the difference between the Government and ourselves by suggesting that industry should be rerated to the extent of 75 per cent.
I do not propose to go into the whole background or history of derating which has probably continued since about 1862, but the problem has arisen ever since the introduction of the Act of 1929 which


provided for relief to industrialists of their local rate obligations to the extent of 75 per cent. Whatever justifications may have existed in 1929, it is our submission that they no longer exist today.
The position today is very different from that in 1929. I do not require to recall to the Committee that in 1929 we had mass unemployment and our basic industries were severely depressed, some almost stagnant. Indeed, in those days, we talked about mass unemployment, distressed areas and Poor Law relief. As a result of these economic conditions and also as a result of the fact that local authorities were involved in heavy expenditure in Poor Law relief and in public health services, one can well imagine the volume of expenditure on these two services alone. At that time it was felt that if industry were relieved of 75 per cent. of its local rate obligation, this might have the effect of stimulating industry and indeed, in some instances, of creating considerable expansion in industrial development and in others might even result in the survival of certain industrial undertakings. In the process it was felt that it would also bring about the absorption of many thousands of unemployed into the ranks of industry. Whether or not the Act of 1929 achieved these objectives is open to question.
I could weary the Committee with a catalogue of facts and figures which would prove that the objectives desired as a result of the 1929 Measure were not in any way achieved, but perhaps it is sufficient for me to say that from the introduction of that Act in 1929 until almost the outbreak of war in 1939 our unemployment figures grew steadily year by year. Almost without exception, year after year unemployment figures in Scotland continued to increase. Concurrent with that our exports, which are a signpost of this country's prosperity, fell year by year from 1929 to 1939.
The economic conditions, social problems and local authority responsibilities are entirely different today from those in 1929 when the Local Government (Scotland) Act was introduced. Poor Law relief and local health services are no longer the responsibility of local authorities. Ever since 1939 or 1945, which perhaps is a better example, our basic industries have developed, grown and expanded and have witnessed a

period of prosperity perhaps hitherto unknown to them. In present circumstances we are entitled to ask ourselves why industry should be in the privileged position of enjoying a subsidy of even 50 per cent. as provided for in the Bill.
I confess that I become somewhat irritated when I hear people saying that local rates are a burden on industry. I would put it the other way round and say that industry has become an intolerable burden on local rates. In Scotland last year ratepayers had to fork out no less than £63 million, and industry's contribution to that sum was only £2,300,000. This diversion of local rate responsibility has resulted in the remaining ratepayers—householders, shopkeepers, offices, and commercial concerns—having to shoulder a much heavier rate responsibility than they should be reasonably expected to carry. We extract as painlessly as we can from these ratepayers this £61 million perhaps not realising or recognising that industry in Scotland is being featherbedded to the extent of almost £7 million.
Why should not industry be asked to pay its full share, or, if not its full share, at least 75 per cent. for the services which local government provides to industry and which are so essential to industry? For instance there is the fire service and the prevention work done by that service. There is also the police service and the provision of roads, sewerage, housing, and, indeed, education. To the industrialists of this country, education is very important if they are not to be left behind in the technological revolution. Each of these services provides a benefit to industry, but industry does not pay its full share of the cost.
I have been told that the imposition of even 75 per cent. of a local rate responsibility would be an intolerable burden on industry. I have collated certain information which reveals to me that, even if industry were to be rerated in full, the financial burden, so far as the average proportion that local rates would form to the cost of production of the manufactured article is concerned, would be less than 1 per cent. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) well knows, the Balfour Committee, which investigated the position of trade and industry, came to the conclusion that if industry were to be asked to pay its full share and meet its full


responsibility for local rates that would represent less than ½ per cent. of the cost of the manufactured article.
A more recent figure has been given by the deputy editor of the Economist, who said that the additional burden on industry in the event of its being rated to the full extent—and we are not asking that that should be done; we are asking that it should be rated to only 75 per cent.—would be a mere flea bite.
7.15 p.m.
During the Committee stage, I gave an example of a shipyard in the City of Glasgow. I pointed out that that shipyard today pays £7,682 in rates. Under the Bill, its rates will increase to £15,364. Under my proposal, its rates would increase to approximately £18,500. My Amendment, therefore, would add approximately £11,000 to the burden of that shipyard. It is a shipyard which builds ships worth £3 million and £4 million. Even if it built only one ship per year, the additional burden of £11,000 is such a mathematical fraction that it could hardly be calculated. Therefore, it is all bunk and nonsense to suggest that the imposition of a rate burden such as we now propose would penalise industry.
I gave another example concerning Grangemouth, a town in Scotland which for a variety of reasons has attracted considerable industry. In attracting that industry, the Grangemouth local authority has naturally become involved in considerable financial commitments. I understand that during the past twelve years it has had to spend almost £½ million on sewers, almost £¼ million on water supplies and £1¾ million on housing. I am not taking into account other commitments of the burgh. Sufficient is it for me to say that the loan debt of Grangemouth has risen over these years to £3,730,000, or roughly £233 per head of population. Indeed, the average loss in Scotland in respect of rateable value as a result of derating is £2 per head of population, but in the Burgh of Grangemouth the average loss of rateable value is £13 per head.
In Grangemouth, the total rateable value of industry derated is today £83,000 representing 29·3 per cent. of the total rateable value of the burgh as a whole, If, however, derating were to be abolished, or even if our 75 per cent. proposal were

accepted, the total rateable value of the industrial subjects would go up from £83,000 to £383,000. This would mean a fantastic figure to the Burgh of Grangemouth. Grangemouth is losing £300,000 of rateable value. That is equivalent to 20s. 6d. on the rates and the rates of the burgh today are 20s. 1d., so that Grangemouth would more than halve its rate burden.
The situation in Glasgow is somewhat similar. The rateable value of industrial subjects in Glasgow today is £459,000, or approximately 3 per cent. of the total rateable value of the city. The other ratepayers have to find the balance of 97 per cent. of the rateable value. If the industrialists in Glasgow were to be rated in full, this would mean in essence, not a rateable value of £459,000, but a rateable value of £1,834,000. If, however, the Government are disposed to accept the compromise which we offer by way of our Amendment, the rateable value would be, not £1,834,000, but approximately £1,400,000. Glasgow, however, is losing each year £1,400,000 by way of loss of rateable value. That is equivalent to approximately 2s. in the £ on rates.
There is no justification today for a subsidy being given to industrial undertakings. Only this month I have read in the Press many examples of the net profits of industrial undertakings in Scotland. I could quote at least ten or fifteen, but I will take only two examples, and not extreme examples at that. One Glasgow firm's profits in the past year have risen from £1,540,000 to £1,770,000. I have also an example of a small firm in a small burgh just outside Edinburgh. This small firm's profits have risen from £92,300 to over £126,000 and the shareholders will be glad to know that it paid a dividend of 25 per cent. One could go on giving illustration after illustration of a situation which I cannot describe other than by saying that it is fantastic that in this day and generation we should be subsidising industry, or, at least, relieving it of its local rate contribution, in circumstances of that kind.
Why should we do it, particularly at a time when the Government, as a result of their financial policy, are reducing subsidies on the housing of the people but are not disposed to reduce the subsidies that they are giving to industry by way


of relief of rates. In the Bill, the Government are also reducing grants which they give to local authorities. That is the purpose of the Bill.
All this adds up to the old story that the ratepayer—not the industrial ratepayer, but the fellow in his house, his office or his shop—is having added to him year by year another 2s. 6d. or 4s. or 5s. on the rates. This has been happening during the past four or five years.
There is hardly a local authority in Scotland after August of this year but will have a rate figure of roughly 30s. in the £, largely because of the financial and economic policies of this Government. Here is a glorious opportunity to relieve the householder and the fellow with his shop or office of some of the burden, and to let industry bear a higher share of its responsibilities than is provided for in the Bill. I regard industrial derating as an instrument to build the reserves of industrial undertakings. Indeed it is a free gift scheme to industry, and to that extent there is absolutely no justification today for our subsidising industrial undertakings to the extent of 50 per cent. as provided for in the Bill.

Mr. George: I would like to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), who has made one of his customary denunciations of industry and the benefits which he believes it gets somehow or other. All the way through his speech the hon. Gentleman referred to industry as being in a privileged position, as being featherbedded, as to it being "bunk and nonsense" that industry will be penalised by full rerating, and spoke of the very good position it is in, as a result of rising profits.
The hon. Gentleman also told us about the poor shopkeeper in Glasgow, who, next year, might be faced with a 30s, rate, and he attributed this wholly to the policy of the Government. The hon. Gentleman conveniently forgot to discuss the policy of Glasgow Corporation which, by neglecting its duty, is putting over 3s. per £1 on the rates, which could easily have been avoided.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt?

Mr. George: No. I have only just started.
I am wondering how on earth industry became derated. One would not think from what has been said that derating was willingly given but that, by means of plots and machinations, industry stole something from the nation. No, it was willingly given, and it was given for an object, and the object was very different from what we hear expressed. The object of derating was supposed to be to confer a substantial benefit upon industry and thereby upon the country: so substantial, the hon. Gentleman said, that it was expected that by being relieved of 75 per cent. of its rates it would prosper and expand and even result in the survival of many industries which otherwise might go out of production. These were the substantial benefits of derating. Yet we are told that no handicap would be imposed by reimposing the burden.
I said that derating was willingly given, as it was, and now they tear and rend industry for the concession so willingly given by the local authorities. It has been in being not for a year or two, but for a long time. Indeed it was willingly continued during the years of the Socialist Administration. Industry was not poor then, it was prosperous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I admit it: industry was prosperous then, though perhaps not nearly as prosperous as it is today. If it was such a vicious thing——

Mrs. Jean Mann: The hon. Gentleman is not taking cognisance of the fact that there was great expansion as a result of the Labour Government setting up new industrial estates.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. George: I appreciate the expansion of the new industrial estates, but my point is that if it is such a vicious and unfair thing, if it is featherbedding industry, why was it allowed to continue from 1945 to 1951?
It was willingly continued for one main reason. The benefit which industry admittedly got was not enjoyed by industry for long. As soon as industry became prosperous, and certainly throughout the last war, the Chancellor looked at industry as one unit to be taxed to its uttermost, and it is still taxed to the uttermost. So what local authorities gave away in that time of need, quite rightly, has been clawed back by the


Chancellor of the Exchequer in the years between. The local authorities' loss was the Treasury's gain.
We have to consider this under several heads. Should industry be a partial or full payer of its share of local authority rates? Can local authorities derive some benefits beyond the payment of money from the fact that industry is a partner in local authority affairs? But, first, I will look at another aspect. While we are talking about the benefits to industry of derating, is industry the only group that is enjoying this? It is not.
The only group of persons who have not been enjoying derating for the last twenty years or more are owner-occupiers. Tenants who have been enjoying low rates have been enjoying low rents. Rent control has meant that rent controlled tenants have enjoyed low rates. Derating has gone on over a wide field, so let us look over the whole field and see whether we need more than one change. That is being done by the Government arranging for a complete revaluation in 1961.
Turning to the question of whether industry should pay its full share of local rates, I frankly cannot put forward one logical argument why it should not I would admit that this is a subsidy if, in fact, industrialists had it in their pockets, but they have not, because the Chancellor took it away. Looking at the purpose we want to achieve on both sides of the Committee, of bringing back to local authorities the feeling that they are dealing with their own money, I feel that industry should pay its full share of local rates. However, in saying that, I look at the Bill and feel certain that the Government have gone as far as they should go at this time. Therefore, I cannot support the Amendment. At the same time, I think that the ultimate objective before the Government should be to reach 100 per cent. rerating of industry by phases and not in one move.
Irrespective of how light we try to make the burden, we must consider the present marginal cases. We must consider the shale industry which is struggling to live, the jute industry which is also struggling to live, textiles and all the other marginal industries. To most industries this would be a heavy burden if it were thrown on to them at once.

Mr. Ross: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what has happened between the Second Reading and the present stage of the Bill? On Second Reading, he said without qualification that he thought industry should pay 100 per cent. rates. There was no question of qualifications and conditions then.

Mr. George: There was the question of phasing. I said we must phase reallocation of 100 per cent. rerating. I made that clear in my Second Reading speech. It should be a phased imposition of 100 per cent. rerating and should not proceed too fast so that it damages those Scottish industries which are struggling.
There is another aspect to consider. We are trying hard to attract industries from abroad and throughout the years industries have come to Scotland in greater proportion than they have gone to England and Wales because of the attractions in Scotland. Part of the attraction has been derating. It is very important to Scotland in the years that lie ahead that we should continue to attract industry from abroad, and that matter may have to have special consideration.

Mr. McInnes: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that it is the view of all industrialists that the industries which come to Scotland, whether American or Continental firms were not attracted in any way by the provision of derating Rates were such a fleabite in their overheads that it did not matter.

Mr. George: I must declare an interest here, because I happen to be the chairman of one of these very firms which I happened to bring to Scotland and over which I have been able to preside. I can assure the Committee that one important consideration in deciding to come to Scotland was the fact that industry was derated.

Mr. Ross: I now have a copy of the speech which the hon. Member made on Second Reading. I suggest that he takes up this matter with the OFFICIAL REPORT, because there is nothing about phasing in his speech. He said:
Rerating should be carried out and should be carried out up to 100 per cent. …
The only qualification he made was:
… but it should be a combined operation between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and


my right hon. Friend in order to see that industry is no worse off after it is rerated than it is now.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1957: Vol. 580, c. 252–3.]

Mr. George: I said that industry should be 100 per cent. rerated, but the hon. Member should quote the whole of the speech and not merely take two sentences. My idea then, as it is now, was that it should be a phased rerating. I return to the subject with which I was dealing before that fruitless interruption.
It is important that we should continue to attract foreign firms, as they have been attracted by the benefits of derating. These gentlemen from abroad pay attention to details. I have just had the experience in the last fortnight of a very important firm proposing to set up at Glenrothes and hoping to bring employment to many people. That firm nearly gave up the idea of coming to Glenrothes, because it thought that the feu duty was too high, even though that was on a few tens of pounds per annum.
We must not lose sight of the fact that we need to attract foreign industry to Britain, and it has been attracted in the past because industry has been de-rated. That is another argument why we should not rush ahead too quickly towards 100 per cent. derating, which should be our ultimate objective.
All through the Bill we have been considering the need to inject new enthusiasm into local authorities, new interests in the work and a new sense of responsibility. One great gap in local authority administration arose after the derating of industry. Industrialists who were experienced administrators ceased to take much interest in local authority work. We lost a very valuable source of members of town councils and county councils when that happened. With the phased restoration of full rating of industry we will draw some of those able men back to strengthen the ranks of local authorities which need a great deal of strengthening.
For that and the other reasons which I have mentioned, I welcome rerating of industry, but I think that the Government have gone as far as they could just now and that the Amendment goes too far, too fast.

Mr. Hubbard: I have always had a great admiration for the hon. Member

for Pollok (Mr. George). He can always successfully back all the horses, and it does not matter which way they run, backwards or forwards. He never gets a non-runner. He did the same thing tonight. He almost had me weeping for industry. However, we all know that industry has two sides, and the hon. Member ought not to forget that the people who make industry profitable are not always those who run it, but are sometimes those who work in it and who have to pay full rates.

Mr. George: Mr. George indicated dissent.

Mr. Hubbard: The hon. Member shakes his head. Is that wrong?

Mr. George: I said that council tenants have been derated for a long time. The rent passing is the assessed value of the house, and rents have been kept unnaturally low. Therefore, those tenants have been derated, too.

Mr. Hubbard: Whatever is in the back of the hon. Member's mind, the fact is that industry has been derated since 1929. I will not deny that something had to be done to keep industry at work. One of the most stupid forms of economy is to pay people for being unemployed. That is the very worst way of spending money, and I should be the last to complain when derating is introduced to keep people in employment.
However, that happened a long time ago and industry today bears no relation to industry in 1929. Industry was then given a subsidy, but since that time it has earned huge profits and has multiplied its businesses and factories so that its annual income has increased. In spite of that, industry still enjoys the benefit of derating.
The hon. Member for Pollok spoke about corporation tenants, and one of my hon. Friends has referred to a shipyard on the Clyde. I know of a prosperous shipyard in Burntisland where four corporation tenants are employed. Those tenants pay more in rates than does the shipyard. Does the hon. Member for Pollok think that that is just?
My view of the Amendment is completely contrary to that of the hon. Member for Pollok. We should have no compunction whatever in asking industry to pay 100 per cent. rates. Industry can


look after itself. If it cannot, the Government which the hon. Member supports can look after it very well. They certainly have done so fairly well in every Budget. Everybody seems anxious to help industry, but I have never heard of industry having to seek National Assistance.
The hon. Member said that he enjoyed being chairman of five companies. Can he say whether any of them is in a dangerous position? Newspaper reports nowadays do not show industry in impoverished conditions. Industry is not to be compared with old-age pensioners who have to pay more for prescriptions when they are sick. Does the hon. Member say that his companies should have priority over old-age pensioners? In considering the assistance given to industry by local authorities, we must keep in mind those people who are wholly dependent upon the assistance of the Government and local authorities.
I had a letter the other week, which I sent to the Joint Under-Secretary, concerning old-age pensioners who were deemed to have benefited from the benefits which the Government was supposed to have provided in the Budget. They got an extra 2d. a week. Is that 2d. a week to be compared with the profits of industry?
Local authorities are always in difficulties. They carry the burden. The Government make policies, but local authorities carry them out. The Government have claimed that they have built so many houses, but they have never built a house. It is the local authorities who build houses and local authorities who have to face building streets and providing education facilities and so on.
We have just been discussing whether a local authority which does a good job with education should get some reward. This is a different matter altogether. The shoe is on the other foot. Hon. Members opposite turn completely round, without any compunction. That is why I said that the hon. Member was bound to back a winner. He has never backed a loser in his life.
7.45 p.m.
His argument tonight has shown that he thinks that industry, some day or other, should pay a 100 per cent. rate.

If there is any justification for an increase from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent., there is a justification for its paying the full sum, unless it can do what other people have to do, namely, prove that it is in need. Old-age pensioners have to pay the prescription fee for medicine and then, in order to obtain a refund of the shilling, they have to satisfy the powers that be that they are in need. I should have no objection to firms being completely derated if they could prove need, but I have not heard of many who could do that in recent times. The hon. Member has been speaking with his tongue in his cheek.
The town of Kirkcaldy, which has not a very large population, has been losing about £70,000 a year as a result of the derating of industry. It must be realised that rates in Kirkcaldy have been rising every year since the present Government came into power; that more and more difficulties have been presented to the local authority, and that still more will be presented as a result of the Bill. It will make it more difficult for authorities to provide education at the proper standard. If a local authority wants to offer any additional education, the Minister says that it must bear the expense itself.
If the Minister says that it is proper that a local authority which wants to provide better education should pay for it, and that it can then claim that the improvement is entirely the result of its own efforts, the same argument ought to be applied to the rerating of industry. We must support the Amendment, which increases the rate to 75 per cent., but I should like to see it increased to 100 per cent. I have never yet heard an argument justifying industry receiving any exemption from rates. In the old days, when I was on a local authority and we dealt with applications for exemption from rates, every person who applied, on the basis of his inability to pay, had his circumstances looked into by an investigating officer. At that time the circumstances of all the residents in the house were investigated before they could obtain any relief from rates.
But industry has been getting that relief without any investigation. The Government now propose to increase the rate from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. It is completely dishonest and absolutely typical of the Government. Everything in


the Bill—as has been the case with all the Tory legislation presented in this House—is intended to benefit one section of the community.
I end where I started. I cannot accept the view that people go into industry to provide a livelihood for others. They invest in it for their own benefit in the first instance. When they draw their dividends they do it for themselves. But they could not draw benefits, and the country could not function—its economy would collapse—if it were not for the workers in industry. I suggest that so long as the people who work in industry are called upon to pay a 100 per cent. rate industry is getting off very lightly in having to pay only a 75 per cent. rate.

Mr. George: Will the hon. Member amplify one point? He said that the shipyard in Burntisland was paying rates equal to that paid by four council house tenants. It would therefore seem that the shipyard is paying £480 in rates. Is the hon. Member telling the Committee that the valuation of Burntisland shipyard, to his knowledge, is only £480?

Mr. Hubbard: I stand by the statement that I made. It was given to me by Burntisland Town Council. The council told me that four corporation tenants were paying more in rates than was the Burntisland shipyard. If the figures are wrong, I cannot help it; I have given the source from which I obtained them. They come from the collecting authority, Burntisland Town Council.

Mr. Willis: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) for wanting 100 per cent. rating for industry, but we have had a go at that and have been refused. Now, in our usual modest and very amiable way, we are trying to obtain a 75 per cent. rating.
I want to say something about the arguments of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George). First, we are not denouncing industry; what we are criticising is the subsidising of industry. The hon. Member should have been fair in hiss argument on this point. He said that Glasgow's rates rose because it had a Labour council, but since we have had a Tory Government and a Tory council in Edinburgh our rates have doubled, and are going up by another 1s. 6d. this year.

Mr. George: I did not say anything of the kind. I said that the rates in Glasgow were up by 30 per cent. a year—as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said—because Glasgow Corporation was not doing its duty in housing. If it charged a fair rent it could reduce the rate by 3s. 10d.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member was suggesting that Glasgow was being mismanaged because the council had a Socialist majority. I was pointing out to him that, under a Tory Government and a Tory town council, since 1950–51 the rates in Edinburgh have doubled. That is one thing that the Tory Party have managed to put up very well.
The hon. Member then discussed the question of industrial rerating. He asked why the Labour Government did not introduce it after the war. I should have thought that he would know that at that time the Government had an immense task in effecting the change-over in industry—a task which they carried out very sensibly; much more sensibly than did the Tory Government after the First World War. Obviously the circumstances at that time were rather different from those obtaining today. There was a need not only to change over industry but to enter world markets exceedingly rapidly.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: There was not a Tory Government after the First World War; there was a Coalition Government led by Lloyd George.

Mr. Willis: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
The hon. Member for Pollok has always shown a great facility for managing to shift about from position to position. He did so in the debates on the Housing Subsidies Bill——

Mr. Hoy: And the Rent Bill.

Mr. Willis: And on the Rent Bill. He has now shown the same agility that he showed then. He has certainly changed from the position he took up during the Second Reading debate, when he supported a 100 per cent. industrial rerating, with certain adjustments to be made by the Exchequer. Now he is qualifying that argument, and saying, "You must not do it too rapidly." One of the arguments that he adduced was that not only


industry had been derated, but also trade and commerce, and that the only people paying rates were owner-occupiers. Owner-occupiers pay full rates only if their property has been revalued during the past few years. In Edinburgh some property has been revalued and some has not. The whole position is chaotic, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. We have passed a lot of legislation to try to bring some order into the situation. That is what we have been discussing for some years, and the process will end in 1961. But does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if we are to bring sanity into this matter we should also include industry? Now is the time when we should include industry, when we are trying to make everyone else face the responsibility of meeting their full share of the rate burden.
The other argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman was a curious one. He said that there are still marginal cases in industry where some assistance is needed. He quoted the shale oil industry and the jute industry, which both receive direct Government assistance, either in the form of tariff protection or by a particular arrangement under the Jute Board, or by a special tax concession on the oil produced. During the Committee stage discussions we advanced an argument that if the Government found a particular industry needed assistance, that assistance should be given nationally. The Joint Under-Secretary of State turned down that argument, but his hon. Friend has today pointed to industries which are assisted by the Government in order to keep them going. He has provided an answer to what the Joint Under-Secretary said to us during the Committee stage discussions.
I do not want to cover the ground which has been covered already in such an able manner by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). The Government have argued that they wish to assist local authorities financially. One of the reasons they give for the introduction of this Bill is the fact that Government contributions to local authorities have increased to such proportions that they far exceed the local government contributions. This is one of the ways by which local authority contributions can be increased substantially

without anything very difficult being done.
If the Government are sincere, why do they not follow that argument to its logical conclusion by saying, "We will rerate industry 100 per cent. and let the local electors keep the proceeds"? The remarkable thing is that after proceeding to rerate industry on the understanding that local authorities want a bigger income, the Government have snatched back two-thirds of it. How can local authorities be given greater freedom, and the rest of it, on that basis?
This brings me to the second argument of the Government, which is tied up with the first, that local authorities cannot be free unless they collect money and spend it. No local authority will ever be free so long as the money is coming from the central authority. This House of Commons will always insist on the central authority exercising proper control over the money it gives. It is the function of this House of Commons to protect the taxpayers' money. Hon. Members on both sides are engaged in the process of attempting to insert certain provisos into Bills to ensure that the money of the people is spent properly. In those circumstances, how can the Government hope to give freedom to local authorities unless they enable the local authorities to free themselves from this contribution from the central authority? This is one of the ways by which it can be done.
8.0 p.m.
There is nothing more absurd than this assistance to industry. There is nothing more irrational. Take the case of two firms doing precisely the same kind of work and both having a rateable value of £20,000. On is in Glasgow and one in Edinburgh. The firm in Edinburgh is derated and assisted to the extent of 16s. in each £ of £10,000. The firm in Glasgow is subsidised to the extent of 26s. for every £ of £10,000. Surely there could be no more absurd basis of assistance to industry than on the rate poundage which happens to prevail in the area in which the industry is situated. There is neither rhyme nor reason nor anything else in it. It is an absurd arrangement, and it cannot possibly by justified by any stretch of the imagination.
I think it time that we looked at the matter again. I do not want to refer to arguments made by my hon. Friends


about the profitability of industry. On the whole, industry is profitable, and on the whole the rate burden of industry is not heavy even if it were paid 100 per cent. I agree that if industry is to pay its rates and the increased cost places it in a difficult position, the Government should deal with that through taxation by reducing the national tax on industry. The position today is ridiculous. The Government refuse to give up any source of taxation. How can local authorities find sources of taxation if the Government claim them all for themselves? How can we talk about setting local authorities free if we do not allow them to collect revenue which they ought to collect for themselves?
I have been re-reading the speech which the Joint Under-Secretary made during the Committee stage discussions. I ask him to read it again and to try to pick out the substantial arguments in it. I suggest he would find that difficult to do. I do not know what are the arguments for fixing the figure at 50 per cent. Why not 40 per cent. or 60 per cent.? It is an arbitrary figure, and we have never been given the reason why the figure was fixed at 50 per cent. and not 10 per cent., 40 per cent. or 75 per cent. It is an arbitrary figure fixed by the Government because of the overwhelming evidence in support of the re-rating of industry. A Private Member's Bill introduced to rerate industry was supported by hon. Members opposite, and this is one of the reasons why the Government have had to give way a little over this question.
Why is the figure of 50 per cent. better than any other figure one might care to think of? I suggest that 75 per cent. is just as good an arbitrary figure as any other—and a dashed sight better from the point of view of local authorities. I remind the Joint Under-Secretary that one of the few authorities which has really gone into the question of local taxation, the Royal Institute of Public Administration, came out unqualifiably in support of the abolition of industrial derating. It stated:
As a matter of local government finance, and as a means of reducing the dependence of local authorities on Government grants, we recommend its abolition.
It further stated:
If for reasons of national policy subsidies for agriculture and industry are held to be

necessary, we feel very strongly that such provisions should be made entirely from the Exchequer.
There are ways of doing it without subsidising industry. The Government can reduce national taxation and reduce the Profits Tax, give higher allowances, and do all sorts of things to assist industry, and that seems to be far more satisfactory. The Government ought to face up to this matter now.

Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) has disappeared since he made his speech, because I wish to quote from his Second Reading speech, in which he said something which, today, he has denied having said. I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 17th December, when the hon. Gentleman said:
I favour rerating of industry. … Industry should pay its full share of local government costs.… Rerating should be carried out, and should be carried out up to 100 per cent. … Rerating at 100 per cent. should be in this Bill, and should be introduced by ten steps of 5 per cent. each and paid back to the local authorities in full—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1957; Vo1 580, cc, 252–3.]
That is part of the case conceded to us, and, indeed, in the debate on the English Bill, the same admission was made from the Government side of the House. Back benchers on the Government side, almost to a man, said that industry ought to pay its full share of rates. If I may quote the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), who is a very respectable and reliable supporter of the Government, who makes an objective assessment of any situation which he examines, he said:
Logically, of course, the case for the 100 per cent. rerating of industry is absolutely complete, but the time is not opportune."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 1075.]
This is a phrase that we get from the Tory Government on every conceivable social reform. It is all very nice, but the time is not right for it. If the time is not opportune now, when is the right time?
Suppose that in a couple of years' time we get a raging recession throughout the world. The Government will then say that the time is not opportune because industry is depressed. Now, when we are prosperous but competing in the international markets, the time is still not opportune.


The time is never opportune, whether we are in a depression, in prosperity or in between the two.
The hon. Member for Pollok, and other hon. Members in the English Bill debate, used the argument that it is all very well to talk about fully rerating industry, but there are weak lines in the chain. There are some firms less profitable than others. I think that the Joint Under-Secretary made that point in Committee. It was said that some industries were less profitable than others—all industry is more profitable in some years than others—and that, therefore, it would be highly dangerous fully to rerate industry.
Exactly the same thing applies to the local ratepayer. I may lose my seat at the next Election, and, if so, my income will go down, but my rates would not go down. It is the same with industry. Why should we differentiate between industry, which has good times and bad times, and the ratepayer, who also has good times and bad times?
If I may refer to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in the debate on the English Bill I would point out that he developed the same argument that the Joint Under-Secretary developed in Committee on this Bill. It was that we were an exporting nation, competing against Germany and others, and that we should not put an additional burden on our poor struggling economy. He said:
Especially at a time when the Government are pledged to stabilise the cost of living, it would be folly to add to industry's burdens."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 1085.]
This is the Government which brought in the Rent Bill. They did not use that argument that it would be foolish to put a burden on tenants at a time when they were trying to stabilise the cost of living. This is the Government that reduced the housing subsidies. They did not produce the argument that it was foolish to put a burden on local ratepayers especially at a time when they were trying to stabilise the cost of living. These arguments are sheer humbug.
The Under-Secretary of State said, during the Committee stage, when we were debating the advisability of rerating industry 100 per cent., that it would put 2¼d. in the £ on costs, and he ventured

to suggest that industry could not bear it. This after six or seven years of Tory freedom. Industry cannot bear an extra 2¼d. in the £, but we are not asking for 2¼d. We are asking for half of it. We are asking that industry should bear another 1d. in the £ on its costs, but we are told that we ought not to take this risk. After six or seven years of Tory freedom and Tory prosperity, industry was on such a razor's edge that it could not bear another penny, and some industries would go bankrupt.
I say that if industries are not able to pay their rates, they should jolly well go to the wall. The local ratepayer goes to the wall if he cannot pay his rates. He goes to gaol, and industry does not deserve to continue if it cannot afford to pay its fair share of the rates. It receives the advantage of all the local services in the same way as the local ratepayer.

Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) should go to gaol if his company cannot pay its rates?

Mr. Hamilton: Nothing would please me more.
We are not going to get this concession. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Pollok has come back to his place, but there are other hon. Members on that side of the Committee like the hon. Member who are ready to say that industry ought to be fully rerated, yet who go into the Lobby supporting the Minister, just as the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) said she would abstain in the last debate and went into the Lobby to vote for the Government. It is just the same kind of humbug.
The hon. Member for Pollok will probably send his speech to the local Press, and the poor local people will read his speech and say what a fine fellow he is, but they will not see the voting list.

Mr. George: Mr. George indicated dissent.

Mr. Hamilton: Well, if the hon. Gentleman will send them his speech, I will send them the voting list.

Mr. George: We have no local Press in our areas.

Mr. Hamilton: If the local people cannot read then that explains why the hon. Gentleman is here.
We are under no illusions that the Government will accept this Amendment. We have tried to compromise, because we are a reasonable set of fellows, and we are prepared to meet the Government halfway. If they are not prepared to go halfway, when we get on that side of this Chamber, and it will not be long now, we will go the whole hog.

8.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): This has been an interesting debate and I appreciate the sincerity of hon. Members opposite, though they have spent almost more time in attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) than in attacking the principle of rerating industry to the tune of 50 per cent. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) said everything in this Bill was for the benefit of industry, and that it represented true Tory thinking. If that be so, why should we double the rates now to be paid by industry as is done in this Bill?
I am sorry that the rates of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) whose speeches I always enjoy——

Mr. Hubbard: Will the hon. Gentleman do me justice? I was not complaining about the rerating of industry to 50 per cent., but the failure of the Government to rerate it to 100 per cent.

Mr. Browne: I gathered that was the burden of the hon. Gentleman's song.
I am sorry that the rates in Edinburgh are doubled but they are still less than the rates in Glasgow.

Mr. T. Fraser: Are they? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much less the Edinburgh ratepayer pays, compared with the Glasgow ratepayer?

Mr. Browne: Not without notice.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East refer to the chaotic position of valuation for rating. I do not know whether other hon. Members noticed it, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, "We passed legislation in the last few years to clear up this chaotic position". I particularly noticed the word "we".

Mr. Willis: I did not notice the Minister on our side of the fence. I am glad of his reference to valuation and rating. I do not think he will find that we resisted the proposals concerning revaluation. We were all in agreement on that. It was to the other parts of the Bill that we objected.

Mr. Browne: Perhaps I was misled by the heat with which the hon. Gentleman discussed the details. What would be the effect of the Amendment? It would increase the amount of rates to be paid by all industries in Scotland. Taking 1957–58 figures, the rates, excluding domestic water rate, actually paid were £2·55 million. If there is 50 per cent. rerating, the amount of rates will be about £4·9 million. If hon. Members opposite had their way, the rates paid would be £7·1 million.
I said I appreciated the argument put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite; it is a matter of judgment as to what is the right extent of rerating. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) will have appreciated that that applies to all industries and all freight transport, whether profitable or not. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) started off back in 1929, but, as he said, the whole history was fully discussed in Committee. The position today is very different from that of 1929. The hon. Gentleman talked of mass unemployment, depressed areas and Poor Law relief. It is true that unemployment continued to increase and exports fell after derating, but the hon. Gentleman cannot tell me and I cannot tell him whether the full effects would not have been greater had there been no derating. We must ask ourselves to what extent derating helped us before the war and to what extent it helps us now.
After going so far, the hon. Gentleman fell into the trap that was also fallen into by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East of comparing the ability to pay rate burdens with profits. Firms making profits now pay heavy taxes as well as rates but firms who suffer losses also pay rates, whether they can afford them or not. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, talked about firms that were losing or that just made both ends meet. Such firms pay no taxes, but they have to pay their rates.

Mr. Willis: I also pointed out that Government assistance was not at the expense of local ratepayers.

Mr. Browne: If a firm is losing it still has to pay rates. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs said that he never heard of an industry going to National Assistance; there is no National Assistance Board for industry. Industry simply shuts its factories. The hon. Member for Fife, West said that it should, "jolly well go to the wall"; but who loses if the factory shuts? The people who worked there. That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite forget.

Mr. McInnes: Surely the Under-Secretary is making a ridiculous analogy. A loss is carried over a number of years when industry makes a profit. Industry is precisely in the position of a householder who may be at work one week and unemployed the next week. He still has to pay his rates.

Mr. Browne: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I was answering the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy Burghs and Fife, West. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, asked why industry should not be asked to pay its full share and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, said he could not pick out of the speeches I had made, or anything that the Government had said, one substantial argument. The real and only argument is that which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) that 50 per cent. rerating is as far as we consider we can safely go.
It is not an intolerable burden on all industry. Nobody said it was, but we dare not, at this time, when world conditions are not getting easier, make things more difficult for firms who export to sell the products of OUT British workpeople. Even a fraction of 1 per cent. is not a mere flea bite as affecting sales abroad, as everybody knows who has had anything to do with export firms.
The hon. Member for Fife, West asked, "If now is not the right time, when is the right time?" The right time is when, under a Tory Administration, this country is on a real, sound foundation

Mr. G. M. Thomson: One of the reasons why we cannot have rerating in

Dundee is that the jute industry is in such a plight that it could not afford the extra cost. How does the Under-Secretary reconcile the present position in Dundee with his statement that the Government are putting Scotland upon a prosperous basis?

Mr. Browne: We are having quite a job after so long under Socialism. In view of the unemployment figures for Scotland, I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should ask industry, upon which employment depends, to carry more burdens, whatever their nature. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs who said that one of the most stupid things to do is to do anything which will stop people working. Therefore, to accept this Amendment would be one of the most stupid things to do.
The English Bill has left the House of Commons. The House of Commons cannot alter it now. To accept this Amendment would be to make a differentiation in this matter between this Scottish Bill and the English Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] A heavier burden in Scotland than in England? Hon. Members opposite do not want that and do not intend it. This 50 per cent. rerating is giving Scottish local authorities a clear gain of £750,000. It is what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked, though I agree that we are not going as far as he would like us to do.

Mr. Willis: By two-thirds.

Mr. Browne: He said that if we gave a greater degree of rerating that would be one way in which we could give greater freedom to local authorities. We are giving them £750,000, and this Bill is another way in which we are giving them greater freedom. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Under-Secretary of State ought not to get so carried away with himself.

Mr. Browne: I enjoy it.

Mr. Fraser: I know the hon. Gentleman enjoys it, but he ought not to get so carried away with himself as to assert that we are giving local authorities another £750,000—"we" presumably being the Government. The Government are not giving the local authorities another £750,000 at all.

Mr. Hamilton: They are taking away £1½ million.

Mr. Fraser: This Clause will enable the local authorities to get from the industrialists of this country £2·3 million. I think that is right. That is what the White Paper told us. It went on to tell us that the Government would steal two-thirds of the money back. Therefore this Bill does not give the local authorities any more money from the Government. We do not give the local authorities any more. We are giving the local authorities less than they have had before. The Government, by the Clause as it is now drawn, are providing that the local authorities shall get £2·3 million from industrialists.
If the Under-Secretary of State will tomorrow read in the OFFICIAL REPORT the speech he made tonight he will see that what he was arguing was that the industrialists could not carry any additional burden at all.

Mr. Browne: I was not.

Mr. Fraser: That is what the hon. Gentleman was arguing.

Mr. Browne: Not that they could not, but that they should not.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman argues they should not be asked to pay any more. This is a Government Bill and it is the Government who are proposing that industry should pay £3 million more, when the Under-Secretary of State says that industry should not be asked to pay any more at all. He got so carried away with an opportunity he was given once again to speak on an Amendment put forward by the Opposition that he forgot that this was an Amendment to a Bill introduced by his own party to put an additional burden upon the industrialists. I know he knows what the position is, but in his flow of oratory he forgot what the position is and completely misrepresented it.
He said that there was no National Assistance Board for industry, but there is. Inasmuch as industry has been relieved of 75 per cent. of the amount it was due to pay for the last thirty years, all industry, without any means test, has been enjoying the benefits of a National Assistance Board.

Mr. Browne: No.

Mr. Fraser: They do not call it National Assistance, but it is National

Assistance for all industrialists whether they have need for assistance or not. All my hon. Friends have been asking is that industry having been put on its feet by the Labour Government after the war—and that is true—it should now be paying its full share of rates again. If the rating system is a bad system, and we have been saying that it is a bad system, let the Government at least undertake to have a look at it.
8.30 p.m.
The Under-Secretary said that they had to have regard to losses made by industrialists. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) has momentarily left the Chamber. When the Under-Secretary made that point I thought of the losses made by coal masters when I was working in the coal mines, and of the amount of money the National Coal Board had to pay in compensation to relieve coal masters for making such losses. The miners have been complaining about that ever since. The Under-Secretary did not want more bankruptcies among industrialists, which he believed would be the result if the Amendment were accepted.
It was interesting that there were so few bankruptcies when the Labour Government were in power and there have been so many under a Tory Government. This is evidence of the great prosperity enjoyed by industry under Tory Government. We know that at the annual meeting of the pawnbrokers much appreciation of the success of the Tory Government was reflected by the geatly increased business which pawnbrokers had enjoyed.
There is still a lot of work on the Notice Paper and we are working to a timetable, so I had better not spend more time in discussing his Amendment. The Under-Secretary did not deal with the serious matter in the way one would have expected a Minister to deal with it. He did a bit of flapping about and engaged in a bit of nonsense about the plight of industry after seven years of Tory Government, which followed six years of Socialism as he said. After six years of Socialism Scotland was looking forward to the future with some hope. Scotland and Scottish industry is at present looking to the future with some fear and trepidation.
The only hope Scottish people have at this time is that the General Election


will come soon; that the Prime Minister will do the right thing by the people of this country and enable them to return to a Labour Government with prosperity.

Question put, That "doubled" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 175, Noes 140.

Division No. 124.]
AYES
[8.36 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Alport, C. J. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Arbuthnot, John
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Armstrong, C. W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Ashton, H.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Atkins, H. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Baldwin, A. E.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Oakshott, H. D.


Barlow, Sir John
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Barter, John
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Page, R. G.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hesketh, R. F.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Partridge, E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Peel, W. J.


Bidgood, J. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bingham, R. M.
Hornby, R. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bishop, F. P.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Black, C. W.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pitman, I. J.


Body, R. F.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Braine, B. R.
Hurd, A. R.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Ramsden, J. E.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Rawlinson, Peter


Bryan, P.
Hyde, Montgomery
Redmayne, M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Irvine, Bryant Goldman (Rye)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Burden, F. F. A.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roper, Sir Harold


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Russell, R. S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Keegan, D.
Shepherd, William


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Deedes, W. F.
Kershaw, J. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kimball, M.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Kirk, P. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


du Cann, E. D. L.
Leather, E. H. C.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Leavey, J. A.
Teeling, W.


Duncan, Sir James
Leburn, W. G.
Temple, John M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Farey-Jones, F. W.

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, Sir H. N.



Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gammans, Lady
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vane, W. M. F.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Glover, D.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Gower, H R.
Maddan, Martin
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Cdr. J. E. W. (Horncastle)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Marshall, Douglas
Woollam, John Victor


Green, A.
Mathew, R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mawby, R. L.



Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gurden, Harold
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Mr. Gibson-Watt and




Mr. Chichester-Clark.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brockway, A. F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Deer, G.


Balfour, A.
Carmichael, J.
Diamond, John


Ballenger, M. Hon. F. J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Donnelly, D. L.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Champion, A. J.
Dugdaie, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)


Benson, Sir George
Chetwynd, G. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Blackburn, F.
Clunie, J.
Edelman, M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Fletcher, Eric




Foot, D. M.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Ross, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, E. W.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Gibson, C. W.
McCann, J.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McInnes, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Grey, C. F.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Grimond, J.
Mahon, Simon
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Hannan, W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mason, Roy
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hastings, S.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)




Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D L.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Moss, R.
Thornton, E.


Holmes, Horace
Moyle, A.
Timmons, J.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hoy, J. H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Viant, S. P.


Hubbard, T. F.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Watkins, T. E.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Weitzman, D.


Hunter, A. E.
Oram, A. E.,
West, D. G.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oswald, T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Padley, W. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Janner, B.
Paget, R. T.
Willey, Frederick


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Parker, J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Pentland, N.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price J. T. (Westhoughton)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Kenyon, C.
Probert, A. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Proctor, W. T.
Woof, R. E.


Lawson, G. M.
Redhead, E. C.



Ledger, R. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmonds.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(NEW LIMIT OF EXPENDITURE BY TOWN COUNCILS ON HALLS, ETC., FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS AND ASSEMBLIES.)

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, to leave out subsections (1) and (2).
When we were discussing in Committee the raising of the limit in this Clause from 3d. to 1s., the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) made a statement to which I could not then give a wholly satisfactory answer, but which this Amendment now answers completely. He said at column 620:
We are not objecting to the raising of the figure from 3d. to 1s., but that there should be a limit at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd April, 1958; c. 620.]
At that time Clause 11 had not yet been discussed. That deals with my right hon. Friend's overriding control over borrowing by local authorities. Now that Clause 11 is still in the Bill as originally drafted, we can and, I believe, we should turn for guidance to the Sorn Report—the Report of the Scottish Valuation and Rating Committee. At the top of page 65 it is stated:

As regards the general case put to us for abolishing the limitations, it might indeed be thought unnecessary to retain them in so far as they relate to capital expenditure if it should be intended that central control over local authority borrowing … should be made permanent. On this basis the limit on expenditure on public halls, which we gather has caused practical difficulties in some areas, might be abolished.
We agree with the Sorn Committee. If we keep Clause 11 in its present form there would in effect be a double check on expenditure by local authorities and this would not be in keeping with our desire to give maximum freedom to local authorities. So I hope the Committee will support this Amendment and a second one which is consequential and clarifying.

Mr. T. Fraser: As the Under-Secretary has said, my right hon. Friend and I and those on this side of the Committee pressed Her Majesty's Government to drop Clause 10 altogether, and the Under-Secretary argued stoutly for its retention. I will quote his final words at col. 622:
Of course it is … a wise measure of control. The local authorities have accepted it as part of municipal life, and I see no reason to do what hon. Members ask us to do, namely, to cancel Clause 10 and make large amendments to the 1947 Act. With that explanation, as I know hon. Members have


other important matters to discuss, I think I will sit down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd April, 1958; c. 622.]
Which he did, and the Question was put.
8.45 p.m.
However, on another occasion, together with his right hon. Friend, he had to make some promises to supporters on his side of the Committee who had objected to the next Clause of the Bill. The Secretary of State undertook to consider whether he could take it out of the Bill, as we had also requested. It is now clear to me, and it was clear when I saw the state of the Order Paper, that the hon. Gentleman tried to temper the anger of his hon. Friends who had supported us on Clause 11 by making a concession on Clause 10 and asking the Under-Secretary to call in aid once again Lord Sorn. We would rather have had the cancellation of Clauses 10 and 11, but we asked for this proposal in Committee, and we are grateful for small mercies. We shall accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hannan: I should like to express my thanks for the Amendment and add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has said by saying that on the previous occasion, when the Amendment on this side was refused, the Joint Under-Secretary quoted the Sorn Report, not in support of what he is now saying, but against the Amendment. He has, therefore, quoted for and against the proposal, which surprises us. He went on by proposing to raise the limit from 3d. to 1s., thereby making the local authorities four times freer than before. This leads us to think on this side that the Government have been in a shady nook by a babbling brook, spelt with a capital B.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 29, after "paragraph (d)", insert:
(which limits the net expenditure incurred or payable by town councils on the provision under section seventy-four of the Act of 1947 of halls and other buildings for public meetings and assemblies)".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(RESTRICTION OF POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO BORROW.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, to leave out "have permanent" and to insert "cease to have".
Even before I start to move the Amendment I know what the Government will say, which rather disappoints me. They made it more or less a condition of giving way on the last Clause that they would turn down this very reasonable Amendment to which they had promised to give consideration.
May I remind the Secretary of State exactly what happened in Committee? He was faced not only with support for this Amendment from this side, but speech after speech in favour of it by his hon. Friends. One of the features in Committee was that it was only on this Clause that we managed to get hon. Gentlemen opposite to speak. I am sure that it was merely because they had got to the point of bursting with indignation at what the Government are doing and they could not contain themselves any longer.
We had a very able speech from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison), who was followed by the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). There were also speeches from the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn). Every one of those hon. Members told the Government that they did not like what was being done, and that, having heard their justifications for what was being done, they were appalled. Eventually, the Secretary of State got to his feet and said:
I have listened with the greatest care to the arguments, and I would like to consider them carefully. I would not agree to the deletion of the Clause this morning, but I promise between now and the Report stage to examine the arguments which have been proposed and see whether there is any other way that this can be properly achieved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd April, 1958; c. 654.]
Faced with a rebellion like that, the right hon. Gentleman took the easy way out. I was rather suspicious at the time, but I withdrew my Amendment so that we could discuss it again; and by the selection of our Amendment we again have that right. I hope that hon. Members opposite who took that line in Committee will repeat their arguments tonight,


because to give local authorities the right to rate in respect of town halls and the like does not measure up in any way to the importance of what the Government are doing in relation to local authorities' powers of borrowing.
Let us get clear exactly what is happening. To any uninformed person, the Clause does not make much sense. The only intelligible words are those in parenthesis, which say:
(which restricts the power of local authorities to borrow money)".
The Clause refers us to the 1951 Act and to subsections and Sections of the 1947 Act. When all that is boiled down, however, it means that we are left with a Statute referring to the powers of local authorities to borrow money for all purposes, whether or not they are to be aided by grant from the Government.
This is well worthy of the attention of all those who have proclaimed the Bill as a flourish of freedom for local authorities and who have described it as the great covenant of liberty for the county councils and the town councils of Scotland. Before local authorities can do anything of a practical nature, they have to borrow money for capital expenditure. The Statute will now read:
A county council or town council shall not without the consent of the Minister concerned borrow money to meet any expenditure of a capital nature for any purpose.
So the people in St. Andrew's House and Whitehall know better than anyone else. This is what is called freedom for the local authorities. They are to be tied completely in respect of everything they do.
We are told by the Secretary of State that he could give way on Clause 11 because a double check would have been entailed. In how many items of relevant expenditure will there still continue to be a double check? The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that in future, in relation to school building, the approval of the Secretary of State will still he necessary and the check on expenditure will remain. It applies time and time again.
We pointed out, and we were supported by the Secretary of State's hon. Friends, that what we are dealing with is the removal of words which were introduced first under wartime regulations and then continued by the 1951 temporary Act,

which was to end in 1953. Scottish local authorities were to be given a measure of freedom that they had before the war, when they could borrow provided that there was a two-thirds majority of the council in support. This means that not only do we make permanent this overriding and all-embracing control which has existed since the wartime regulation was introduced, but that we deny to Scotland and to Scottish local authorities the powers of borrowing that they had before the war. There is no justification for it. It is certainly not in the realms of Tory philosophy.
I want to protest. I protested during the Committee stage that the Joint Under-Secretary was not in his place. We have had him here a considerable part of today, but he is not now in his place. He holds a considerable measure of responsibility, which certainly demands explanation from him of why the Government are doing this. I want once again to remind the Committee exactly what the Joint Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), in a Liberal flight of Tory fancy, said in 1951, when the Labour Government introduced this provision to last only for a few years. He said this:
We have been told time and again that the control of capital expenditure is one of the essential controls which the Socialist Government intend always to exercise. In that case, why should three years be mentioned? Is this just another bit of camouflage, or do the Government really think we shall get round that recovery corner in three years?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 28th November 1950; c. 1785.]
The hon. Gentleman is now a member of a Government who tell us that they must make this thing permanent. We shall never get round recovery corner. I will quote the Secretary of State in relation to this optimistic opinion about getting round recovery corner. During the Committee stage, in an enlightening speech, he said:
Our reserves are not what they were. They cannot be after fighting a Second World War.
That was a strange illumination which came suddenly to the Tories many years after the war was ended. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
The whole question of capital expenditure remains today a problem which any Government has got to watch if we are to keep our financial structure stable. Is it possible to foresee in the reasonably near future that this careful watch can be dispensed with?


I would doubt it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd April, 1958; c. 653.]
There it is—recovery corner—and they were worrying about a Bill which lasted three years. Here, tonight, we are giving it permanent effect and denying the Scottish local authorities their right to that measure of freedom which they had.
During the Committee stage we made it clear that, although we did not like it, we were prepared to accept such Amendments as would allow the Government to continue in operation with the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, giving year to year force to this provision. The Government, obviously since they have taken no action, have rejected that offer. I was interested to note that those hon. Gentlement who did speak their minds about this and I give them credit for this, put down an Amendment asking for this provision to be continued until 1961.
That, also, has obviously been rejected by what was said in relation to the previous Amendment. The Government intend to keep this Clause in the Bill unchanged. I hope that those hon. Gentlemen will resist this attack upon Scotland and upon our freedom. Why should the Government, in every second speech made from the Box opposite, say that it is a matter of trusting the local authorities, when they will not trust the local authorities to raise and spend money in all the difficult circumstances of today for purposes for which they receive no grant?
This is the essence of distrust, and we must consider the small field in which this is effective. We had the figures from the Joint Under-Secretary because we discussed this in November, when he brought it forward on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. This effects between one-twentieth and one-thirtieth of all Scottish capital expenditure. I know the argument that is being given to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland by his hon. Friend. The point is that it is the only portion that is turned down. All the other requests from local authorities to borrow under this are agreed. So they are wise, they are just, they are right, and they are supported by the Department.
This means that to receive one-thirtieth of expenditure the Government

are prepared to fasten for ever this fetter on Scottish local authorities, this Tory shackle, probably pinning the label "freedom" upon it. I wonder that the Secretary of State for Scotland has the courage to come to the Box and proclaim himself as the Secretary of State for Scotland, and talk about liberty, freedom and the rest of it. It does not mean a thing in the context of what he is doing here. What does it mean for local authorities?
We were told in Standing Committee that local authorities would be allowed to borrow up to £5,000 without going to the Secretary of State. What does £5,000 mean to the City of Glasgow? Are we to be told that what is fit for the City of Glasgow is fit for small burghs such as Newmilns, in my constituency? For a small burgh like Newmilns, with its limited resources, £5,000 is a reasonable sum, but, proportionately, Glasgow should be allowed £50,000 or £100,000. If we had seen a reasonable approach to this matter by the Secretary of State, we should not have raised this subject again.
9.0 p.m.
I want to quote again the Joint Under-Secretary, the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). In 1950, he said that he firmly believed that if local authorities were forced to apply to the Secretary of State, even although unanimous that some expenditure should be incurred, they were relieved of their essential responsibility, and the result was that instead of considering whether they were absolutely convinced that the expenditure was necessary in the interests of those whom they represented, they put the responsibility on the Secretary of State. In other words, if local authorities have to decide for themselves and know that there is no further check, they may give more careful consideration to expenditure and even that one-thirtieth which has been turned down would not have been presented.
That is a relevant argument and I appeal to the Secretary of State to think about it once again. There has been no indication, certainly not from what he said about the last Clause, that he is giving this matter due consideration. What his hon. Friends said in Standing Committee was right. His hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) could not bring himself to go into


the Lobby to support us, but he said that he believed that local authorities were responsible people and that the Government could be more generous. The Government do not intend to be more generous and I ask the hon. Member to say what he intends to do about it.
There was the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), who is my Member of Parliament and whom I am watching very carefully tonight.

Sir T. Moore: How lucky the hon. Member is.

Mr. Ross: I am perfectly sure that when the votes were counted in Ayr in the 1945 General Election the hon. Member left the room and said how lucky he was that he had managed to beat me by 700 votes when his former majority had been 14,000.
The hon. Member said that a vital principle was at stake and I hope that he will not allow that vital principle to go by the board. It is not enough to make speeches. He must record his vote tonight in favour of our Amendment. He said that this was a matter of policy and of trusting the local authorities and that the Government were breaching a gap in that policy and that a vital question of principle was involved. He was not alone. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said that permanent control could not be justified.
I want to know how the Secretary of State intends to justify it, especially in present circumstances. It is not so easy for local authorities to get a two-thirds majority as the deciding factor in relation to borrowing—although our Amendment will change that two-thirds majority. It is certainly not easy in present circumstances, when every local authority is concerned about the rising costs of all capital expenditure in which it is involved and in which the responsibility to ratepayers is such that expenditure is under constant guard. It is certainly not easy to get money even after it has been agreed to borrow. Rates of interest are another barrier, provided that someone can be found prepared to lend the money. There is also the attitude of the ratepayers themselves to be considered.
I wonder whether the hon. Member has seen some of the local election results

which have been coming in from Scotland today. They show that in Lanarkshire, where the Tory hopes were very high, the Government's policy of freedom for Scottish local authorities is scorned by the people. There has been a net gain of three seats for the Labour Party.
I hope that the Secretary of State will properly address his mind to what this provision means to Scotland. In Committee, I suggested that what was happening here was that Scotland was being brought into line with England. We value our liberties—even that small measure of freedom which was returned to us in 1947. Let it be recorded that the people who threaten that liberty are the Tory Party. They are very fond of the word "freedom", but when it comes to the deed they are prepared to shackle us, not for two or three years but permanently, by this Measure.

Sir Thomas Moore: I am very grateful for this opportunity of speaking to the Amendment, especially as I understand that a later Amendment in the name of some of my hon. Friends and myself is likely to be out of order. I should like to congratulate my constituent upon giving such an admirable resumé of the purposes of the Amendment. I also congratulate him on having made such a careful study of the technique of his Member. He has profited from it.

Mr. Ross: My study is continuing.

Sir T. Moore: As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has explained, the Amendment has been moved for one purpose only—to give local authorities full power to borrow such money as they may need without reference to or control by the Secretary of State for Scotland. On the other hand, as the hon. Member also pointed out, the Government desire to make permanent their present control over such borrowing which, at the moment, depends for its annual renewal upon the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. The arguments on both sides, to which I listened very carefully in Committee, are so persuasive and so almost convincing that the only way out of the impasse, or the only way to solve the problem, seems to be some form of compromise.
The Opposition ask why, since it is the declared policy of the Government—indeed, it is inherent in the Bill—to


give more authority to local councils, their borrowing powers should be subject to the overriding authority of the Secretary of State. The Opposition's case is very soundly based. They say that it is better to leave the position as it is and allow it to be reviewed annually when the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is discussed.
On the other hand, the Government say that it is their policy to get rid as quickly as possible of all those war-time controls and regulations which so irritated us for many years after the war and which have now become a perfect pest. Indeed, they believe in the most admirable policy, so much appreciated by the people of this country, of "setting the people free". That is a policy which is supported by hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
We are grateful to the Government for the exemplary way in which they have discarded the Defence of the Realm Regulations to the extent of about 253 in the last five or six years. But, and this is very important, to reduce that number by one and then make that one a permanent part of our legislation, as is being done in this Bill, seems to me an odd and a stupid procedure. I do not consider it good enough. We all recognise that in the present economic situation the Government must control the powers of borrowing, whether in the private or the public sector of industry. They use the Capital Issues Committee, the banks and other bodies for this purpose. Surely it cannot be right to make this control—which is very properly exercised at present—a permanent control?
In common, no doubt, with other hon. Members, I have received a number of letters of protest about this Bill. I have replied by pointing out that the declared purpose of the Bill is to give more authority and responsibility to local authorities and therefore to promote more interest in local government by members of town councils and county councils throughout the country. In that way we shall secure the greater interest and voluntary service of the best qualified people in the community. If we pass this Clause without amendment it will make nonsense of my reply.
My hon. Friends and I see the arguments on both sides and they are fair

and reasonable. We believe that a compromise is the only way out, and so we suggested—in an Amendment which, no doubt, was out of order—that Government control of borrowing should be limited to a period of three years. It might be argued that that gave the impression the Tory Party believed that the present economic situation and the need for financial restraint will continue for that period. I hope hon. Members will rid themselves at once of such an impression. Because of their wise and farsighted policies, we believe that the present, and the next Conservative Government will have solved our difficulties long before the period of three years is ended. I come back to what to me is the most heavily weighing factor, this permanency of control, which is thwarting one of the fundamental principles of the Tory Party. We have said time after time that we trust local authorities and desire to repose the utmost confidence in their powers and decisions.
This exercise of permanent control means the undermining of the foundations on which our policy is based. If the Government accept this compromise suggestion it will mean that in three years' time, by 1961, all local authorities will have the right and power to borrow such moneys as they need for their services and for their expansion, without any overriding authority except their own sound common sense and the backing of a two-third majority of their members.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to pay serious attention, as I know he will, to this plea from one who is normally one of his most loyal supporters, but I assure him that if he cannot give better arguments against my proposal than his hon. Friend gave in Committee, I shall be forced to register my disapproval of his action by not leaving my seat if a Division takes place.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: May I say how interested we were to find the dilemma of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) being exposed to us in such clear and lucid terms? His attitude on this question of principle is going to be a perpetual embarrassment to his colleagues on that side of the Committee. As far as I can make out, up to now the Conservative Party's success at elections and,


indeed, their whole arguments in the country consist of saying something which they do not subsequently practise. If the hon. Gentleman is now to insist that they should practise what they preach, his Government will be placed in an unearthly dilemma on such questions as nationalisation, controls and things of that kind.
The Conservatives say that they do not believe in any controls and that they do not believe in subsidies, yet they have subsidies here and there and they have controls right and left. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said, this control has just no reason whatsoever. It is a perpetuation of something because nobody seems to have thought what should be put in its place. I agree with the hon. Member for Ayr that after the Secretary of State gave his promise to consider this matter, something should have come out of it, whether it was the proposed compromise which the hon. Gentleman's Amendment suggests, or whether it was some adjustments such as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock has suggested, giving great places like Glasgow a different kind of measure to small towns of a few thousand inhabitants.
I have tried to think of a reason for turning down this Amendment. It may be that the Secretary of State, realising the hopelessness of local authorities being at the mercy of moneylenders, with their slick methods, thought that they need to be protected by a kindly mother from St. Andrew's House to watch over them and see that they are not misled by clever financiers. It may be that. It may be, of course, that the Government want to see that the City of London gets all the business. I recollect the time when Sir Patrick Dollan, as the Treasurer of Glasgow, came to the City of London and Mr. Montagu Norman to negotiate a loan for Glasgow. He went back very indignant at the terms offered, and promptly borrowed from the people of Glasgow themselves at a much lower rate. It may be that the Secretary of State and the Government want to protect the City against any tricks of that kind by shrewd Scots who want to borrow cheaper at home.
There may be other interesting reasons why nothing has been brought forward

to put in its place, but I should have thought that after the Secretary of State heard the arguments on the Committee stage, he might have been impressed that something should be done, and yet he has done nothing. It seems to me quite unjustifiable that nothing has been done, and that this situation is to stay put. His hon. Friends on the benches opposite put very cogent arguments to him and there are several things that local authorities could be allowed to decide without this grandmotherly supervision over every little detail.
I understood that one of the purposes of this Bill was to try to relieve St. Andrew's House of a great deal of this unnecessary detailed supervision over local authorities. In fact, it causes more irritation than all the big controls. When it was required to build a little shed in a railway shunting yard, the matter had to go through a great circumlocution department and down to London before permission could be obtained. We have had cases of that kind, and these little controls have caused far more irritation than the big controls.
I am satisfied that the Government have plenty of controls outside the financial ones, from the point of view of building and capital expenditure. I agree that the Capital Issues Committee ought to see that the general capital expenditure does not outrun our capacity to build, construct and erect, but we are not talking of amounts of that kind. We are talking about some reasonable latitude to the local authorities and some freedom to them to have discretion. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock explained that a two-thirds majority was required for approval to be given, and, normally speaking, I think we can take it that if there were anything doubtful there would be sufficient of a minority to stop the matter until it went to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State ought to have been thinking about some controls which gave freedom and yet retained the necessary discretion for the Government to achieve what has been suggested by the hon. Baronet. We are a little disappointed that so little has come out of the consideration that the Secretary of State has given to this matter, and we hope that even at this late date he will assure the Committee that when the Bill goes to another place he will introduce


an Amendment which has some constructive idea in it and which does not just make this a permanent control giving no reasonable latitude to local authorities.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I support the views which have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). In my opinion, a vital point of principle is involved. Before the war our local authorities in Scotland had wide powers of borrowing—much wider than the same sort of local authorities had in England. When the war came, these powers naturally were restricted, and they have been kept restricted by virtue of the Local Government (Scotland) Acts of 1947 and 1951. The powers have been kept going by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. I do not quarrel with that, and I do not mind my right hon. Friend having powers temporarily, but I do quarrel with his taking these powers permanently as Clause 11 proposes.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is no lover of controls. Equally I realise that he does not like the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts, and I can understand that. I also know that he is making administrative arrangements for local authorities, if they so wish, to be able to borrow up to £5,000. That is a step in the right direction, and I am grateful to him for taking it.
Against all that, however, we have to look at the purpose of this Bill, which is to give greater freedom to the local authorities. We are giving them more financial responsibility by means of the general grant, and this Clause as at present drawn runs counter to that. It will give the Secretary of State permanent powers over the local authorities.
I cannot agree with that. It is wrong in principle. I am prepared to give my right hon. Friend powers, if need be, while our finances are in a difficult state. I would go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr and give him powers for three years. Further than that I shall not go.
Before the war, local authorities in Scotland had wide powers of borrowing. They had had them for many decades. I want to see those powers restored as soon as possible. I should like to see them restored to Edinburgh now, because

it is a well-conducted city with an excellent Town Council, and I have great faith in it. I recognise that other areas are perhaps not quite up to Edinburgh's standard. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to think again about Clause 11. If he insists upon pushing it through as drafted, I am afraid I cannot go with him into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Grimond: Before the Secretary of State replies, I would press him to state more fully why he is making this power permanent. It has nothing to do with the financial embarrassments of the Government. They would not need to have permanent power for that. It would imply, in that case, that there will be financial difficulties into the indefinite future.
I have the feeling that this is an effort to get round the purpose of the Bill. In Committee, the answer given by the Joint Under-Secretary, in reply to questions why these powers were being kept, was that owing to the change-over in the grant system it was necessary to have some further control over the power of local authorities to borrow for purposes which were not covered by the general grant. If I am right about that, it is a very odd reason. I share the Secretary of State's suspicion of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, but is it really the case that we are to write into the Bill a provision that over a certain amount a local authority must get the right hon. Gentleman's permission to borrow?
The right hon. Gentleman will have to examine the purpose for which the borrowing is wanted before he gives his decision, and he will have to discriminate between borrowing for one purpose and borrowing for another. He already has the interest rates of the Treasury at his disposal and he is using them. He was unable to give any case in which he would withhold his permission on the ground that the local authority was abusing its powers.
We are now to have written into the Bill a permanent power based on a wartime regulation, physical in nature, and based on suspicion of the local authority. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but that is a point with which I would like him to deal. The only other reason I can think of is that the Conservative Party intend for all time to keep on this


war-time control. It seems to me that on the two horns of that dilemma the Secretary of State for Scotland is impaled.

Mr. Ross: The Secretary of State claims to be a Liberal.

Mr. Grimond: That is a political matter into which I would not like to go on this Amendment. I should like to put down a further Amendment which could be discussed.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. George: I shall be brief on this issue tonight, but I cannot let it pass without some comment, because during the Committee stage a promise which was made by the Secretary of State stopped some of us from continuing a discussion we were having. He said he was very impressed with many of the arguments and he would think over the position to see whether a way could be found. That thought has not resulted in any explanation, and the Clause remains unaltered, so that some of us felt constrained to put down the Amendment which, unfortunately, is not in order.
I have never subscribed to the oft-repeated statement, frequently uttered by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that the Secretary of State continually is dragged at the tail of England. Nor do I subscribe to the statement that he is unduly swayed by the views of officialdom in Scotland or London. I do not agree with those charges which have been made, but the fact is that this Clause does bring us into line with England and we know that the English local authorities are bound in this way.
We know, and it has been said so often, that the Scottish local authorities used to be free to borrow without seeking the permission of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State thoroughly rebutted the charge that the Clause was dictated for that purpose. During the Committee stage he said:
This is no result of pressure on the Scottish Ministers to conform."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd April, 1958; c. 652.]
He went on to say that in judging what to do he decided by what was the right thing to do for Scotland and whether it was honest. Those were his criteria for deciding on this issue. Those are admirable sentiments, and we appreciate and share those sentiments. I readily pay

tribute to the great honesty and sincerity of my right hon. Friend in his high office.
But what emerges from all this? The Secretary of State in a Conservative Government, in deciding upon a Measure, and deciding, as he said it ought to be decided, by judging whether it was the right and honest thing to do for Scotland, clamps a permanent control over local authority borrowing where complete freedom was traditional. It is not as though a tremendous amount of money were involved. The sums involved have already been given. Let me repeat them. They are quite trivial. However, the principle of the matter is substantial. The money involved in 1956 was £3·8 million, which was turned down, and in 1957 it was only £2 million.
I believe that this step being taken by Clause 11 is wrong psychologically. It is wrong from the practical angle in that it is not winning co-operation from or giving encouragement to the local authorities. It is contrary to humanist thinking, as my hon. Friends have said. It denies any of the promises and pronouncements which have been given, by my right hon. Friend himself, by the Joint Under-Secretary of State and by Lord Strathclyde. It runs counter to the purposes of the Bill.
The underlying purpose of this Measure is to give local authorities increased financial independence and to encourage local government electors to take a fresh interest in local government affairs. I deeply believe, as do my hon. Friends, in maximum freedom for local authorities at all times, consistent with Government responsibilities. Where local authorities are spending local money on local schemes, thought up and judged by local men, and with a two-thirds majority deciding, I believe their freedom should some time in the future be complete. I appreciate that there is a £5,000 grant, which may be important to small areas, but it is a bagatelle to large areas.
I cannot help feeling that this is perilously near a breach of faith with the local authorities. They were free until 1940, and they then accepted this restriction in war quite readily, and the continuation of it long after the war did not produce any real feeling among them, but in recent years they have felt that the time should be near at hand when they should get their traditional freedom restored. They


have remained utterly co-operative, however.
On 21st of November, the Joint Under-Secretary of State said:
I think it fair to say that the local authorities do not like this Measure …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1957; Vol. 578, c. 675.]
They knew the national need was paramount. They still know that national needs are paramount. They appreciate that, and they co-operate on that basis, but all the time they have thought this restriction a temporary measure and that it would end and that their traditional freedom would be restored to them.
I quote my hon. Friend again. In that same speech he said:
The Government are very much indebted to local authorities for their statesmanlike appreciation of the position and for their restraint."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1957; Vol. 578, c. 675.]
They do not like it, but they have shown restraint. Why did they show restraint? It was because they thought this was temporary and the time would come when it would be wiped away. They hoped it would be wiped away far more quickly by those on this side of the Committee than those on the other side. I do not deny the need for control of public expenditure at this time. Incidentally, I do not believe the statement made by the Joint Under-Secretary in Committee upstairs that when the block grant came in there might be a swelling up in this field of non-grant-aided expenditure. We suggest that a compromise between the one year examination and permanent control is three years.
Even at this late stage, I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give this matter a second thought. The climate of today will not last long. The policy the Government is pursuing to stabilise the £ will, I am quite sure, result in stabilising the £ and allowing industry to expand. In the light of that expansion, I think local authorities should feel that they can be rid of this burden and not have to face the future permanently under the dictation of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) put his finger on the real reason for this Clause when he said that it was the practice in England and that that was the explanation. A very

large part of the explanation is that because this is the practice in England, Scotland is being made to toe the line. I know that the Secretary of State denied this, but he has not produced any evidence to the contrary.
I was particularly interested in the arguments of the Joint Under-Secretary as to why this measure of control should be made permanent. I still find that very interesting. The hon. Gentleman said, when we were discussing Clause 11:
it is the only control that the central Government have over the spending by a local authority of its own funds on items which are not specifically grant-aided.
He went on to say:
Prior to the introduction of general grant, such spending is comparatively trivial, but with the change-over to general grant and the consequent loosening of central control, it will be more than ever necessary that in the national interest the spending by local authorities should conform to the general economic pattern laid down by the Government of the day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee. 22nd April 1958; c. 637–8.]
The only reason I can read into this is that the money which local authorities are in future to receive under general grant will be for the purposes not specifically regarded as grant-aided. None of them will be earmarked in the sense that they receive a certain sum of money from the central Government which is to be spent on those services. My understanding of the Bill is that everything possible has been done to eliminate the means of tracing the proportion of money which goes to these services. The whole of the money will be lumped together and not paid in respect of those services. That money is not a block grant to be spent on those services, but a general payment will be made to the local authority. If what the Under-Secretary said means anything, it means that the local authority can spend the money more or less as it pleases None of these services is to have a certain amount of money spent on it.
The Under-Secretary said that when the general grant becomes the practice instead of the specific grant earmarked for purposes, each receiving a percentage grant, instead of this item of the local expenditure being trivial it will become important. The hon. Member did not use the word "important", but that is what he meant. Formerly it was a small matter, but now it becomes a big matter.


On the basis that none of these services will have a specific sum which must be spent on it, there will be a freedom to spend or not to spend on these services, and the local authority might use the money for rate-saving purposes or some other purpose quite different from development expenditure.
That suggests to me a distrust by the Government of local authorities. If hon. Members read the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State further they will see that, as reported in column 639, he speaks of local authorities sometimes finding it difficult to resist local pressures which might cause them to act in ways contrary to the national interest, which in this case, presumably, is the spending of adequate money on the service on which it ought to be spent. These remarks show a fear and distrust of local authorities. If local authorities are to be given money which can be used for other purposes than those for which it is intended, then, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn), the Government have conceded our case. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said as much in an intervention on that occasion.
Do the Government rest their case on that kind of argument? It was the only argument presented which had any substance. The argument presented by the Secretary of State was just nonsense, but here at least was an argument of substance, although it was a product of distrust of local authorities and of a recognition of the fact that local authorities will be placed in a position in which they may use this money for purposes other than those for which it should be spent.
May I for a moment consider the claims of Conservative freedom? I believe that hon. Members opposite have deceived themselves with their own propaganda. If we study Conservative freedom, we must ask the question, "Freedom for whom?" Very quickly we see that Conservative freedom was no more than the power of the person who had the wealth to use his wealth in ways which he considered most advantageous to himself. That was the freedom—the freedom of the purse and to use the purse in the interests of those who possessed it. When it comes to freedom for others, for example freedom to obtain jobs and to hold on to jobs, freedom for people to

protect their health standards, to do what they can to raise their standard of life and to see that their children obtain the best education possible, Conservative freedom breaks down.
Hon. Members opposite think that they believe in freedom. I am prepared to concede that they honestly think they believe in it. In practice, however, they fall down on their belief. Perhaps a short example will make the point clearer. Hon. Members opposite also think that they believe in competition. That was one of the great slogans which they used in the last Election—"Freedom of competition." Yet it is a fact that during most of this century the business men and even those independent gentlemen the farmers have done everything they could to escape from competition.
The history of our economy over the past fifty years has been an endeavour to escape from competition and I suggest that one does not believe in something from which one endeavours to escape. Similarly, with this question of freedom; it is freedom so long as it suits them but they are very ready to abandon it when it does not. The point now emerges in the words of the gentlemen opposite themselves—this particular Clause is a violation of what they consider to be freedom. Let us see them go further than merely sitting on those benches when we divide. Let them come into the Lobby with us. We shall see whether they are prepared to do their bit in fighting for the freedom in which they are supposed to believe, but I doubt whether any of them would come into the Lobby tonight. We shall see whether they genuinely believe in this freedom they speak so much about.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has given me some tempting ground on which to follow. I saw Sir Gordon looking gently towards him. You restrained yourself, Sir Gordon, so I will not stretch your powers of restraint too far. But has not the hon. Member for Motherwell realised the profound difference between the philosophy of his party and that of those on this side? His party is tied up to the hilt in controls for control's sake, quite irrelevant to the needs of the moment. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Get back to the Amendment."] I will


do so when I have dealt with the speech which has just been made.
Hon. Members opposite dislike me following up the speech which the hon. Member for Motherwell has made, one so damaging to the cause of the Amendment which stands in the name of his hon. Friend—because he did let a lot of cats out of the bag and showed clearly that the party opposite still believes in controls for control's sake and that the purpose of the Amendment is largely—

Mr. Lawson: What has this to do with controls?

Mr. Maclay: Hon. Members opposite must learn that when I am on my feet I do my best to answer the debate. The moment I start to answer, if they do not like my answer to the speech that has just been made, they say, "Come to the Amendment," regardless of the fact that the previous speaker did not speak at all about the Amendment. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] I notice that the Chair was keeping a watchful eye upon the last speaker and I understood that he would keep a watchful eye upon me, but I must not be told by hon. Members to be discourteous when I am trying to be courteous to the hon. Member who has just spoken.

Mr. Lawson: Might I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he goes as far as the Chair permits? When the Chair pulls him up, that will be different.

Mr. Maclay: I like to have my own ideas of order, and I do not like stretching those ideas too far, although I have done so in the past. But I hope I have made the point clearly. There is a profound difference between the views of hon. Members opposite and those on this side on the question of controls. They cannot deny that; and it points to the fact that this Amendment is not so much an indication of their tremendous concern for the freedom of local authorities, but is rather a good chance of embarrassing myself and Her Majesty's Government at the moment when the hon. Member knows my hon. Friends have grave doubts about this. But how does that link up with the whole philosophy which is the basis of the actions of hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Woodburn: Why does not the hon. Gentleman ignore us and give way to the pleas of his hon. Friends? Why pay any attention to us? Let him say that he is ignoring us but that he recognises the reasons put forward by his hon. Friends and will act reasonably in regard to them?

Mr. Maclay: I was going to discuss a little further what has been said by my hon. Friends as well as by hon. Gentlement opposite. I do appreciate the great depth of sincerity which motivates my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) and my hon. Friends who have spoken.

Mr. Lawson: Apart from the rest of us?

Mr. Maclay: No, I admit the sincerity of the speeches which have been made, but I do not admit the consistency of speeches of hon. Members opposite in relation to their actions.

Mr. T. Fraser: I was a member of the Government that passed the 1951 Act. Is the Secretary of State saying that we were dishonest in 1951 when we passed that Act? If he is, let him make that clear. If he is not, what reason has he to say that we have been dishonest or inconsistent in seeking to bring this Act to an end?

Mr. Maclay: I did not use the word dishonest. I used the word inconsistent, which is a different thing. It is perfectly possible to be honest, and to be inconsistent, and it is fair to point out an inconsistency if it exists. I have been puzzled when hon. Members opposite have insisted on the procedure under the annual Expiring Laws Continuance Act. That is one of the reasons why I feel that I must maintain my position in this matter, because I do not think that that annual procedure is the right one if one feels that for a fairly long time to come, perhaps a year, or two, three or four years maybe, an Act has to be continued.
May I deal with the main points which have been made on both sides? Of course, I have given this matter very careful and anxious thought since the Committee stage when I said that I would look into it. May I recall the words that I used:
I think this Amendment must be rejected. I have listened with the greatest care to the


arguments, and I would like to consider them carefully. I would not agree to the deletion of the Clause this morning, but I promise between now and the Report stage to examine the arguments which have been proposed and see whether there is any other way that this can be properly achieved. I do not hold out hopes of being able to do it. It would be wrong, however, not to say that I am at least prepared to consider the arguments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd April 1958; c. 654.]
I have, of course, looked at the figures as carefully as possible. The conclusion I have come to is that one must deal with the substance and not the shadow. I know that it sounds odd for somebody on this side standing at this Box and saying that a certain type of control looks like being necessary for some years to come. It is the type of control that any nation with a permanent balance of payments problem and an inflationary problem has to have in mind. The total expenditure of local authorities is a large proportion of all expenditure, and it would be quite wrong to imply that in the next year or two—and I am being frank and honest—there is any likelihood of our being able to allow capital expenditure regardless of the consequences to the national economy. That is a different thing from the detailed type of control, which I intensely dislike. This is not detailed control.
The second reason why it is right to maintain the Clause is this. The very fact that it is in the Bill enables some quite substantial relaxations of irritating smaller controls. That is the substance of what I want to achieve in the Bill—getting the maximum possible freedom that means something for local authorities.
I thought that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was slightly ungracious in the way in which he received the alteration that we made to Clause 10. I think that it was the hon. Member for Hamilton who implied that I had made this concession in order to appease my hon. Friends. It is fairly clear that I have not appeased them from what they said. But this is one of the Clauses where relaxation is possible.
Coming to Clause 12, we have been able to ease up on extending the borrowing period for sums borrowed for a wide variety of purposes. There is also this despised £5,000. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) gave some figures

and spoke about one-thirtieth. We propose that in future all applications for borrowing consent for sums of less than £5,000 should be approved automatically without examination of the merits, provided that the total amount of capital investment for the year allows this course to be followed. This was looked on as a very small concession. Three thousand and twenty-six applications to the value of just over £4 million were approved in the financial year 1957–58. That was out of a total of 4,247 applications. The important figure is the 4,247 applications.
By this relaxation, we will get rid of all the detailed nagging worry about these, both in the work in St. Andrew's House and by local authorities. There are other relaxations which I hope by administrative and other means we will be able to achieve. All this is made much easier provided one has the knowledge that we have a certain overriding control to see that the whole balance of local government borrowing for capital purposes is correct in relation to the nation's economy.
That leaves the question of duration. I would dearly like to feel that it was right to accept the compromise proposal of my hon. Friend, but I think that it would be running away from the main issue.

Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at these figures? We have had figures before, and we were told by the Joint Under-Secretary on 21st November that the value of applications affected by the Clause and which were turned down was £1,666,000 and that the actual number of those rejected was 107 Surely, the 107 is all that is at stake. A simple process of arithmetic and averages shows that the number of these that would be covered by the right hon. Gentleman's figure of £5,000 is negligible.

Mr. Maclay: I have given the figures, I am sure correctly, for the under-£5,000 operations. These figures were in the financial year 1957–58.

Mr. Willis: Are these all grant-aided?

Mr. Maclay: Let us get these figures. It is also possible—I repeat it to make it clear—that all applications for borrowing consent for sums of less than £5,000 should be approved automatically and, in the financial year 1957–58, the total


number of applicants was 4,247. If it is not a substantial advantage to dispose of that number of applications, with all the work that is entailed on both sides, I do not know what a substantial advantage is.

Mr. Ross: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman realises that he is now continuing this permanent control for the sake of stopping the 107 applications. Had he accepted this proposal, he would have wiped out the need for the whole lot as well as for those under £5,000.

Mr. Maclay: We are on a different point and I do not want to confuse the figures. Mine are quite clear.
I was coming to the question of duration. It is very tempting to put in a figure of two or three years, but it is more frank to put it in the Bill as we have done. As soon as a situation develops in which all this kind of control can be abolished, it is perfectly possible to bring a one-Clause Bill before the House to delete Clause 11 and then it will have gone for ever. By that procedure, we avoid the business of an annual Bill. The Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is a useful Measure, but it should only be used where absolutely necessary and when there is a good chance of getting rid of an Act within a year or possibly two years. The practice of annual continuance conveys the implication that a Measure can be got rid of at the end of a year.
It is very tempting for Governments—let us be frank—to slip things through in that procedure which some hon. Members may be watching for and catch. We have always said, and it is part of our principles, that if a situation demands that one of these Acts must go on year by year, it is more frank to come to the House and explain the reasons for it. The fact that we have had this intensely interesting and rather strong debate, in which, I greatly regret, I am not completely at one with my hon. Friends, shows the justice of this procedure, because we have had to explain fully how we are doing this.
I repeat that there is no distrust of the local authorities. In certain conditions it is essential to keep a balance between the borrowing by the local authorities for their purposes and borrowing for all

other purposes of the country. The minute that this need has gone it will be perfectly simple for a short, uncontroversial Bill of one Clause to delete Clause 11. I hope in the years to come that will be possible, and I hope I shall be here when it is possible. It may be soon, and it may not be soon.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean five, 10 or 15 years?

Mr. Maclay: I will not hazard a guess. I hope it will be soon, but I would not say at the moment, watching the tendencies in the world, that in the next year or two we are likely to be completely free from the possibility of balance of payments problems or of certain inflationary problems. That is one of the things on which the Government have discovered over the years they have to keep a close watch.
I repeat that I am sorry that I cannot meet my hon. Friends. I have considered various ways of meeting them, but I did not think these were justified. It is better to do it this way and, when the time comes to get rid of this type of control, to do so by a one-Clause Bill. That being so, I must insist on the Clause remaining in the Bill.

Mr. T. Fraser: I honestly believe that the right hon. Gentleman is deceiving himself. I do not think he is deliberately deceiving the Committee, but he is most certainly doing so, because he has repeated himself in saying that if we think it will be two or three years before we can get rid of controls entirely we should be frank about it, put them into permanent legislation now, and bring forward a one-Clause Bill in two, three or four years' time.
If the right hon. Gentleman believes that this is the intention of his Government. I do not believe him. I can tell him that the argument he advanced in favour of making this a permanent provision in a Statute is precisely the argument which was given to us in 1951 when we were the Government, by the Treasury officials, and which we rejected. The difference between us and the right hon. Gentleman is that he has accepted it.
Why is the instrument of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill used at all? It is precisely to deal with a provision of


this kind which, we say, should be subject to revision from year to year. If he believes that this power to be exercised by the central Government over the borrowings of local authorities is a matter which should be examined against the background of the general economic situation, the balance of payments, and so on, that is the kind of thing which the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman acting for the Government, should make possible for us to review from year to year. It should be continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and not written into a permanent Statute. By doing the latter the Minister does not make any provision for us to consider it from year to year.
It may well be that it was his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary who was more frank when, in Committee, he said:
Getting rid of expiring laws continuance is in line with our general policy of getting rid of wartime controls, but we appreciate that some control by the Government over spending by local authorities will always be necessary.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd April, 1958; c. 639.]

Hon. Members: Always.

Mr. Fraser: Who was the more frank, the Secretary of State or his hon. Friend? I think that it was his hon. Friend who spoke for the Government on that occasion. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman has been trying to get the Bill accepted by the people of Scotland on the ground that it would give a measure of freedom to the local authorities. That was stated to be the purpose of the Bill. I never believed it to be so. It is certainly not the effect of the Bill, and every hon. Member who represents a Scottish constituency, particularly those who have participated in this discussion, knows that what I say is true.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two slight adjustments in administration made from time to time. Those adjustments are always being made and will continue to be made irrespective of

what party is in power. The right hon. Gentleman set up a working party to study administrative arrangements between local authorities and the central Government. Will he publish that report, which he has now received? Will he tell us that the working party was able to recommend any easement of controls which would have justified the extravagant language he used about freedom having been given to local authorities? Of course he will not.

Local authorities have been cribbed, cabined and confined by the Government. Their borrowing position has been made substantially worse than it has been for very many years. They have been driven to the open market and into the clutches of the money lenders. They are paying more than twice as much for the money they borrow as they did when the right hon. Gentleman's party became the Government less than seven years ago. Local authorities are getting a raw deal from the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman had a wonderful opportunity of taking one small decision which would have helped his hon. Friends to put this Bill across as a Measure granting freedom to local authorities in Scotland. He could have done that by accepting the Amendment and responding to the blandishments of his hon. Friends. He has failed to do that. We have a great deal of business still to conduct, and we had better reach a decision on the Amendment and on the Clause. I invite hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have been so bitterly disappointed by what the right hon. Gentleman has said, not to be content with siting on their Benches when the vote is taken, but to follow their arguments with their votes.

Question put, That "have permanent" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 174. Noes 142.

Division No. 125.]
AYES
[10.7 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bryan, P.


Arbuthnot, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Burden, F. F. A.


Ashton, H.
Bingham, R. M.
Chichester-Clark, R.


Atkins, H. E.
Bishop, F. P.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger


Baldwin, A. E.
Black, C. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Barlow, Sir John
Body, R. F.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Barter, John
Braine, B. R.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.




Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Peel, W. J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hurd, A. R.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Deedes, W. F.
Hyde, Montgomery
Pitman, I. J.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ramsden, J. E.


Duncan, Sir James
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rawlinson, Peter


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Redmayne, M.


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Keegan, D.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Errington, Sir Eric
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Kershaw, J. A.
Roper, Sir Harold


Fisher, Nigel
Kimball, M.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Kirk, P. M.
Sharples, R. C.



Langford-Holt, J. A.



Foster, John
Leather, E. H. C.
Shepherd, William


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Leavey, J. A.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Gammans, Lady
Leburn, W. G.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Glover, D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gough, C. F. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gower, H. R.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Teeling, W.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Temple, John M.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Green, A.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Marshall, Douglas
Vane, W. M. F.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mathew, R.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mawby, R. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hesketh, R. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Woollam, John Victor


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Oakshott, H. D.
Yates, William (Tbe Wrekin)


Hornby, R. P.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)



Horobin, Sir Ian
Page, R. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Mr. Wills and


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Partridge, E.
Mr. Brooman-White.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edelman, M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Janner, B.


Balfour, A.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fletcher, Eric
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Foot, D. M.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Benson, Sir George
Forman, J. C.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bonham Carter, Mark
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gibson, C. W.
Kenyon, C.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lawson, G. M.


Brockway, A. F.
Grey, C. F.
Ledger, R. J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grimond, J.
Lee, Frederiok (Newton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hale, Leslie
Logan, D. G.


Carmichael, J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hannan, W.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Champion, A. J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
McCann, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hayman, F. H.
McInnes, J.


Clunie, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Coldrick, W.
Herbison, Miss M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Mahon, Simon


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Houghton, Douglas
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hoy, J. H.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hubbard, T. F.
Mason, Roy


Deer, G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchison, G. R.


Diamond, John
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moody, A. S.


Donnelly, D. L.
Hunter, A. E.
Moss, R.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Moyle, A.







Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Ross, William
Timmons, J.


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Royle, C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Oram, A. E.
Short, E. W.
Wade, D. W.


Oswald, T.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Watkins, T. E.


Owen, W. J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
West, D. G.


Padley, W. E.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Paget, R. T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, Frederick


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, David (Neath)


Parker, J.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Williams, Rev, Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Pentland, N.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Prentice, R. E.
Stross, Dr, Barnetr (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Probert, A. R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, Richard


Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Redhead, E. C.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Woof, R. E.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)



Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thornton, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 173, Noes 141.

Division No. 126.]
AYES
[10.17 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Arbuthnot, John
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Armstrong, C. W.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Ashton, H.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Atkins, H. E.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Oakshott, H. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Page, R. G.


Barter, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Partridge, E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Peel, W. J.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bingham, R. M.
Hesketh, R. F.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Black, C. W.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pitman, I. J.


Body, R. F.
Hornby, R. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Braine, B. R.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Ramsden, J. E.


Bryan, P.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Rawlinson, Peter


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Redmayne, M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hyde, Montgomery
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roper, Sir Harold


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Sharples, R. C.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Keegan, D.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Deedes, W. F.
Kerby, Capt, H. B.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kershaw, J. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kimball, M.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kirk, P. M.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Duncan, Sir James
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Teeling, W.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Leather, E. H. C.
Temple, John M.


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Leavey, J. A.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)



Leburn, W. G.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Foster, John
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vane, W. M. F.


Gammans, Lady
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Glover, D.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Godber, J. B.
Maddan, Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gough, C. F. H.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Wood, Hon. R.


Gower, H. R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Woollam, John Victor


Graham, Sir Fergus
Marshall, Douglas
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Mathew, R.



Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Mawby, R. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Green, A.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Mr. Wills and Mr. Legh.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hayman, F. H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Parker, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss M.
Pentland, N.


Balfour, A.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Prentice, R. E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Benson, Sir George
Hoy, J. H.
Probert, A. R.


Blackburn, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Proctor, W. T.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Brockway, A. F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Royle, C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Short, E. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Janner, B.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Carmichael, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Sorensen, R. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Clunie, J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Coldrick, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Kenyon, C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lawson, G. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ledger, R. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Logan, D. G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Deer, G.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Diamond, John
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Donnelly, D. L.
McCann, J.
Thornton, E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McInnes, J.
Timmons, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edelman, M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wade, D. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mahon, Simon
Watkins, T. E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
West, D. C.


Fletcher, Eric
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Foot, D. M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Willey, Frederick


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Williams, David (Neath)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, C. W.
Moss, R.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winterbottom, Richard


Grimond, J.
Oram, A. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hale, Leslie
Oswald, T.
Woof, R. E.


Hamilton, W. W.
Owen, W. J.



Hannan, W.
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.

Clause 12.—(EXTENSION OF MAXIMUM PERIOD FOR REPAYMENT OF SUMS BORROWED FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, to leave out from "authority" to the end of line 28 on page 9 and insert:
for purposes authorised by statute shall be such period not exceeding sixty years as may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State".
The purpose of Clause 12 is to extend the period for which the local authority can borrow money in respect of the services mentioned for sixty years. The Amendment seeks to give to local authorities authority to borrow for sixty years for all statutory purposes. That seems to me to be a very small thing to ask. I understand the local authorities themselves would like to have this general power, and I cannot see why the Government should not grant it.
There are no arguments such as the Government gave us in respect of the last

Amendment as to why the local authorities should not have these powers. In fact, if the Government are trying to extend the freedom of action of local authorities, surely this is one way by which it can be done. I understood from the Secretary of State when he last spoke that he was patting himself on the back for having given them this degree of freedom. I cannot see why he should not give himself a bigger pat on the back and give the local authorities complete freedom within the confines of this Amendment. I do not know whether the Minister intends to accept this Amendment. If he does, I am prepared to resume my seat and let him have the pleasure of accepting the Amendment before half-past Ten.
Why do the Government want to continue to govern local authorities in certain respects? Is it because the Government think they know better than Glasgow


Corporation, for instance, what is the most suitable period for them to borrow money? Is it because the Secretary of State thinks that he knows better than the City Treasurer, the City Chamberlain and the other officials of Glasgow Corporation what are the best terms on which to borrow money, the best period, and what is most suitable for that local authority?
I really cannot think the Government believe that, but this is what is implied if the Government do not accept the Amendment—that once again the Government believe that Whitehall and St. Andrew's House know best. That is the philosophy underlying the rejection of the last Amendment and it also underlies what I assume is going to be the rejection of this Amendment—that St. Andrew's House knows best. I am bound to say when I look along the Government Front Bench that it is a very sad reflection on the abilities of Scottish local authorities.
Surely that cannot be so. The officials, for instance, of Glasgow, Edinburgh and other local authorities are quite competent, and in Edinburgh, speaking from personal experience, they have a very shrewd sense of the money market. In fact, I suppose very few people have a better sense of it than the officials of Edinburgh Corporation, including the City Chamberlain. They know the requirements of the local authority and they know what is most convenient for the ratepayers of Edinburgh; and the same applies to the officials of Glasgow Corporation. They know how best to spread the burden, whether it should be spread over sixty years or a shorter period.
The Minister ought to give the local authorities this power. We are not asking a great deal. It is in accordance with what the Government have declared to be their policy. But, when we explore the Government's declaration of policy we find that there is very little reality about it at all. If the Government are sincere in this—

It being half-past Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CLEAN AIR

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [13th May],
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Alkali, &amp;c., Works Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 497), dated 24th March, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th March, be annulled,—[Mr. Nabarro.]

Question again proposed.

10.31 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: When we were discussing this Statutory Instrument last night, I was seeking to say why so many of the larger local authorities, at least, feel that they should have control over atmospheric pollution. I had given some examples from the local authority of Stoke-on-Trent, and had referred to the pottery industry, in which, in recent years, there has been a technical revolution in the process of firing the ware, which means that the domestic and sanitary pottery can now be fired in factories that are completely smokeless. Today, only 15 per cent. of the factories in the pottery industry use raw coal.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we had a public inquiry into this matter, which was conducted by Sir Frederick Armer. He reported, as today we know to be true, that some pottery products in the heavy clay industry—such as tiles and certain types of brick—cannot as yet be produced in smokelessly-fired kilns, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept it from me that we feel that there is ample protection in the temporary exemptions contained in Section 2 of the Act, and there are five more years to go as from today.
Speaking for my own local authority. I am empowered to say quite categorically that, of course, the local authority will give every consideration to this fact. Apart from reasonable encouragement, pressure and incentive, the last thing we would want to do would be to do anything against the industry which would throw our own people out of work. We would never dream of doing that. On the other hand, if the Minister takes from us the right to act in the courts against offenders, the local authority becomes merely a smoke watcher—and hon. Members also become watchers of


smoke, as it were, at second degree—for all that will be left to the local authority will be for it to come here and complain when there is undue delay in offering a remedy.
I said last night that I had received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary, who wrote to me, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, in response to the grievances put forward on this matter. I said that I thought that, perhaps—and I do not say this unkindly—some of the arguments advanced were a little off the beam. In the preamble to his letter the hon. Gentleman stated, quite rightly, how very interested the Ministry is in the new trends that are tending to give us clean air in Stoke-on-Trent.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Where the conversion of intermittent coal fire kilns is feasible, it may involve major reconstructions which can only be accomplished gradually. In some cases development is hampered by lack of space; continuous kilns take up much more room than intermittent kilns, and some works will need re-siting.
I think that the answer we give is that for the majority of factories that would not be true. It may be true for some, and they would have to have special consideration from us, which certainly we would give them. Conversion is not a very expensive matter now. We know all the techniques, and they are available to the manufacturers, who very quickly regain any capital expenditure, for this is such a good economic proposition for them. Therefore, and inasmuch as this will not apply to the majority of cases, we feel that there is not a serious point in that argument.
At the end of his letter, he said:
If these works are scheduled you may be assured that the Alkali Inspectorate will require alterations to plant as soon as practicable if the products can be manufactured by smokeless methods. Only where the products themselves necessitate a coal fired intermittent kiln will the issue of coal be permitted for any lengthy period, and in those cases the Inspectorate will do all in their power to see that the appropriate research is carried out into the development of new techniques to achieve smokeless production.
We answer that in this way. First, we say there is no need for duplication on research. The Ceramic Research Association is centred in the city. Its association with the local authority and, of course, the manufacturers is very close and most friendly. There are very few

problems that have ever been presented which they have either not solved or very nearly completely solved. We are very deeply indebted to them. They are working on this problem and there is no fear of duplication. We feel that this is the reasonable and proper answer to give.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be brief, but I want to say a few words on the general principle and leave my local authority out of it for the moment. I ask the Minister specifically to refer to Section 17 (2) of the Clean Air Act, 1956, when he replies to the debate. That would be the most important part of his answer to us. He may be able to say, "If I am to interpret this subsection properly, it means that if local authorities can satisfy me that they have inspectors suitably trained to give protection to their citizens against atmospheric pollution, why should they not do it?" He can say, "They can apply to me for exemption." Obviously, if he does, we shall be extremely pleased, because not all local authorities are in a position to be able to go to the Minister and say, "Leave it to us."
There is a further matter we discussed on Report of the Bill to the House. I think it was on 10th April, 1956. My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), supported by myself, raised the question of joint committees. We said that a local authority might not be rich and not very big, but might join with an adjacent authority to form a joint committee such as local authorities form in a joint water board. We asked whether they could then apply to the Minister. The Minister at that time, the present Minister of Defence, thought that it would be perfectly feasible. If I remember aright, he used such words as, "It would be entirely satisfactory." He said that it was not in the Bill, or in the Amendment we were discussing, but he saw nothing against it for it would be desirable.
May I also point out to the Minister that in Section 17 (2, b) of the Act a very important defence is provided by the phrase:
… the best practicable means had been employed …
to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke. It seems we are doing everything in our power to see that nothing untoward shall happen to our


industries, but we ask that local authorities, which have had these powers in the past and are fit to exercise them today with reference to smoke, grit and dust, should be allowed to use them.
Nothing that anyone has said in any part of the House should be taken as in any way a reflection on the quality and technical excellence of the Alkali Inspectorate. That is the last thing we would dream of suggesting. We cannot do without them; we must have them, but we want not to burden them with small matters, as may happen if the Minister does not meet us on this Prayer. We want them to handle those things they are best able to handle, things we cannot do ourselves, because they are essentially specialists.
I am sure that if the Minister can meet us in this way nothing will be regretted and local authorities will be able to feel that they can get on with the job of giving us clean air; and that this will not be to the detriment of anyone.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: I am sure that my right hon. Friend cannot be surprised if some of us on this side of the House take exception to this Order. I will explain why. It is because we regard it as a thoroughly Socialist measure. If one wants to judge whether a measure is Socialist or not, there are two tests to apply. One is: is it bureaucratic? The other is: does it favour the nationalised industries?
Socialism always endeavours to support bureaucracy and nationalised industry. Clearly, judged by those standards, this Order finds itself convicted of being good Socialism. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has explained on more than one occasion that the philosophy of Socialism is that the man in Whitehall knows best. The Order would take away from local authorities power which they have now to manage their own affairs and vest power in an inspectorate which is controlled from Whitehall. Personally, I disapprove of that. I believe that the powers which have existed with the local authorities ought to be left with them.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Does the hon. and learned Member realise that we are now dealing with the results of the Clean Air Act,

and that during the passage of that Act through Committee we on this side of the House were arguing against control by the Alkali Inspectorate and for complete municipal control? Only because a compromise was arrived at, are we now faced with this situation and these regulations.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member only confirms what I have often suspected, that Socialists say one thing one day and another thing the next. What I am saying is quite consistent. I do not believe in control from Whitehall and I do believe that local authorities can do this job.
Judged by the other standard I mentioned, quite clearly this Order favours the nationalised industries. The power, gas and electricity industries are being excepted from the ordinary law and there is a form of favouritism which I regard as unacceptable. We have had this problem very largely in the district I represent. Brighton and Hove get showered with grit, dust and smoke from the power stations, electricity and gas works in the Shoreham area. Every representation we have made to get this controlled by the nationalised authorities has been unsuccessful. We cannot get them to do anything about it. If the local authorities themselves were able to deal with the matter, we believe that because they understand local problems they would be able to prevent the continued emission of the dirt and grit which form the only blemish which can be said to exist at this desirable resort.
There is a fundamental principle here. This is a Socialist measure. I know that even under Conservative Governments Socialist measures slip through, merely because a civil servant has a Bill in a pigeon-hole and decides to pull it out, and whatever Government is in power the Bill is passed through the House of Commons.
I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about this Order and to make sure that he does not place us in our present difficult position. During last week for England and this week for Scotland we have spent a lot of time saying that local authorities ought to have more power. With this Order the Government are doing exactly the reverse—taking power away from the local authorities and vesting it in an inspectorate in Whitehall. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be


able to explain where is the consistency in that. I ask him to think again about these provisions and to place his confidence in the local people to govern themselves and to look after their own local affairs.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I had some doubt whether I was on the right track, particularly when I found that the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) was after the same thing. He gave us his conception of Socialism. I do not accept him as an authority on many things, and certainly not on Socialism.
When we discussed this matter, both in Committee and on Report on the Bill, we were given what we regarded as a reasonable undertaking by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that care would be exercised and that an examination would be made of the situation with a view to leaving as much of this power as possible with local authorities. The difficulties were recognised, but it was also recognised that some very large cities and towns, by virtue of their size, had sufficient financial resources to employ their own staff.
It was recognised, too, that in other parts of the country, such as the Teesside, where there is a heavy concentration of industry, it was doubtful whether local authorities, taken individually, would be big enough to undertake this job. Taken collectively, however, they are big enough, and the local authorities on Tees-side have been giving considerable attention to this matter for a very long time. They have a very enthusiastic and energetic Tees-side smoke abatement organisation, composed of all the local authorities on both banks of the river. Because of the concentration of industry on both banks they have been giving attention to the question of smoke abatement.
If all the industrial undertakings are to be taken away from the control of local authorities, if their public health inspectors are to become merely smoke watchers, if the local authorities are to be deprived of the right to take action without the Minister's consent, and if the Alkali Inspectorate—even though it is being increased to 28 people—is to be

used as the principal agent for determining these matters, then it seems to me that the spirit of the local authorities in attempting to apply the Clean Air Act will be broken from the start.
If these things are to be done effectively, the local authorities should be encouraged. It must not be thought that the inspectors employed by the local authorities are not men of good qualifications. In the Report of the Working Party on the Recruitment and Training of Sanitary Inspectors, 1953, it was revealed that, even at that time, five years ago, there were 423 inspectors who held smoke inspection certificates, of whom 308 were employed by boroughs. Twenty-five inspectors specialised in smoke control to the extent of making it a main part of their job, while 1,595 inspectors gave some part of their time to smoke inspection. To qualify for the smoke inspection certificate, public health inspectors have to pass an examination for which there is a comprehensive syllabus which deals with the basic causes of smoke formation.
The Minister should give us an undertaking that the promises of his predecessor are to be carried out. His predecessor said, in 1956, that
An important point was raised by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), who was supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). They raised the point which is set out in the Amendments of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools, which, no doubt, will not be moved if the present Amendment is adopted. It is the question whether, in the case of local authorities who by themselves are not financially or technically sufficiently strongly equipped to carry out these functions individually, it would be possible for these duties and responsibilities to be transferred collectively to a group of local authorities in an area.
Then he went on to say:
Since there is power in the Amendment to terminate the delegation of powers, obviously that should be a sufficient guarantee that the joint committee would continue to be operated. It should be entirely satisfactory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1956; Vol. 551, c. 42–3.]
That seemed to be a fairly reasonable undertaking on the part of the Minister's predecessor. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he is to carry out that undertaking, he ought to tell us tonight that he is prepared, in areas like Tees-side, to permit authorities to form joint committees and to employ their own officers to do the work.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston: Although the Minister's Order seems to have few friends, I come out firmly in favour of it. As I am myself responsible for some of the highly technical processes which appear in the Schedule, I must declare my personal interest.
In our arguments over the powers of local authorities to inspect, we have obscured the main purpose of the Order. Under the Clean Air Act, it becomes, for the first time, an offence of itself to make black smoke. Of course, that is industrial nonsense, unless escape clauses are provided. It seems to be a much more sensible and proper way to do it to admit that there are certain processes which, in our present state of knowledge, it is not possible to operate without making black smoke. That seems to be plain common sense.
I know, from the care taken in drawing up the Second Schedule, how strong a case one has to put up to show that a wish to continue to make black smoke comes not from the works being too idle to install modern apparatus or processes, but from the fact that there is no process yet known to man which can, at reasonable cost, anyhow, be installed to prevent the emission of smoke. There is a process called the deoxygenating of molten copper by immersion therein of wood—which is one of the processes I know something about—and industry would pay enormously if anyone could find a more efficient way of doing it, or, indeed, another way of doing it at all. It is because I feel so strongly that this list has not been lightly put in the Second Schedule that I so strongly support the Minister in his Order.
Those people who are concerned about the powers of local authorities do not, perhaps, pay sufficient attention to the powers that they have under the Alkali Act, 1906. Under Section 14 of that Act, they can, if they wish, apply for additional inspectors and under Section 22, on the application of a local authority or of ten members of the public, a suspected nuisance can be investigated by the Alkali Inspectorate. That provides an ample measure of local control, and local authorities should not feel that they are being deprived of powers, powers which are absolutely new to them. I consider that the Alkali Inspectorate

is entirely analogous with the Factory Inspectorate and nobody would suggest that that should come under local authorities.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: Last night's pause in the debate, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who gave us a display of pyrotechnics which I have seldom seen equalled in the House, and which generated more heat than light upon the subject, provided an opportunity for hon. Members to appreciate that this Order is simply an obligation which was imposed on the Minister by the Clean Air Act, which was carried without dissent on Second Reading and Third Reading. The Minister is simply meeting that obligation. The only question is whether the Order is in accord with the terms of Section 17 of the Act.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I did not say that it was not.

Mr. Moyle: I listened with very great interest to what the hon. Member said, but by the time he finished. I had thought that I should be very surprised if there were any material difference between him and the Minister on the issue of the inspectorate. The hon. Member ruled out Kidderminster and Billericay and similar small towns from his suggestion and said that he was concerned only with the large towns like Sheffield, Birmingham and Manchester.
My impression is that the Minister has power to consider representations from such towns. It is for the towns to take the initiative, not the Minister, so the hon. Member for Kidderminster was somewhat premature in charging the Minister with a crime which he has not yet committed.
I am solidly in favour of a central inspectorate. I have suffered from the effects of smoke pollution. For thirty years I have lived on Thames-side, a victim of the cement industry of Gravesend, from which grit and dust pollute the area.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. There is no mention of the cement industry in the First or Second Schedule to the Order. Is it in order to mention it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was using it as an illustration.

Mr. Moyle: Subject to the advice of the Minister, Mr. Speaker, I think that "lime works" cover cement. I think I am right in believing that the cement industry is brought within the Alkali Inspectorate and is covered by paragraph 37 of the Second Schedule to the Order, which refers to lime works.
The Order is the most practical interpretation of Section 17 of the Act, because of the kind of inspectorate that Gravesend, Swanscombe, Dartford, Bexley, and Deptford provide to deal with the problem of air pollution from Gravesend. This work can be done properly only by a central inspectorate, and the charge for such an inspectorate should fall upon the taxpayer and not the ratepayer, because the cement industry at Gravesend benefits the nation as a whole and not merely the local people.
The hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) has said that this was a Socialist measure. All I can say is that, if it is, the whole of the Beaver Committee, including Sir Hugh Beaver himself, are Socialists, because they strongly recommended a central inspectorate and the extension of the area provided for in the Order. If the hon. and learned Member has any complaint it is against the Beaver Committee, and not against the Order.
There is one constituency point that I want to mention. There is a case for marrying the local public inspectorate and its staff with the centre. A foundry comes within the purview of the central inspectorate. In accordance with this Order, that inspectorate will have to deal with dark smoke which emits grit and dust, while the actual place of work which emits the grit and dust will be dealt with by the Factory Inspectorate, and dark smoke which does not contain grit or dust within the definition of the Act will be dealt with by the local public health inspectorate. How does the Minister propose to utilise the local public health inspectorate, and what will be the exact division of duties between the inspectorates when the Order becomes operative after 1st June?

11.3 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor - Goldsmid: I am very happy to follow the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), because the

point that he raised is very much in my mind. One would have thought that this problem of clean air was indivisible. The idea that one inspectorate should deal with one type of smoke and another inspectorate with another seems to bear very little relation to the facts of the case.
I know that the House is anxious to hear the Minister, but I should like to point out that I represent an authority which has taken a leading part in instituting a smokeless zone, and that to do this it has had to conquer a good deal of what I would describe as local obscurantism on the point. The authority has done it, and the town is all the better for the smokeless zone.
It will strike at the root of confidence in local government if the powers which it at present exercises are taken away. I have not heard it mentioned anywhere at any time that these powers have been improperly exercised. Therefore, it is a matter of concern to me that in passing this Order we should not also pass a slight on local authorities who have done their best to implement this extraordinarily important Act.
I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee which considered the matter and time and again throughout the proceedings we heard that this was very much a matter which transcended party; that it was an agreed Bill. I hope that something which started with such enormous good will will not lose its character by a slight having been cast on the capabilities of the local authorities to do a job which, certainly in the Midlands, they are doing very well.

11.6 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Henry Brooke): In this debate, tonight and last night, I have been called a Socialist and "extremely ham-fisted"—worse words than were addressed to me during the 120 hours of debate on the Local Government Bill. If I rise to speak now, it is not because I wish to cut out any other hon. Members who desire to speak, but because I know that our time is limited and I should like to speak in a way that I trust will allay the fears of hon. Members. I hope that it will be felt that, on behalf of the Government I can give the assurances that hon. Members desire. I will not, therefore, go into the technicalities which


have been raised, and there may be some statements which I may seem to ignore, but I want to go straight to the heart of the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), and other hon. Members who spoke paid particular attention to Section 17 (2) of the Clean Air Act. I consider that Parliament put that subsection in the Act meaning it to be used. Certainly, so long as I am Minister, it will not be treated as a dead letter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster suggested that I should have made an Order, or several Orders, under Section 17 (2) simultaneously with this Order. I have to point out that I have not the power to do that. The Act does not allow me to do so. If hon. Members will read the terms of the Act, they will see that the Minister can move under Section 17 (2) only
if, on the application of a local authority, he is satisfied. …
It is true that this Order was made some weeks ago, but up to the present I have not received any such application from local authorities.
I think that is quite natural, because the first step to take after this Order was made, and as it comes into operation, is to draw up a register of the works in each local authority area which will be affected by it. Only when it is firmly settled which works, as the result of this Order, will come under the Alkali Act can any question arise as to a local authority applying for action by the Minister under Section 17 (2).
I envisage that when the Order comes into operation, and these registers of works come to be compiled, large authorities which feel that they are sufficiently well equipped with a full-time trained smoke inspectorate will apply to me to see whether they can satisfy me under the terms of Section 17 (2) that I should use my powers. From all my knowledge of the subject, I shall be surprised if the Stoke-on-Trent, Sheffield, and one or two other authorities, do not make such applications.
May I say, in passing—because there were some allegations that control by the Alkali Inspectorate was always remote control—that in our strengthening of the Inspectorate we are proposing to have a district inspector and an assistant inspector based on Stoke-on-Trent, and

likewise an inspector and assistant inspector based on Sheffield. I could give the House the other geographical areas which will be thus covered.
Quite clearly, it would be wrong and improper for me to say what conclusions I would reach on any such applications until an application had been made and I could see the grounds on which it was supported. Any Minister charged with duties under an Act should come to conclusions on the merits of the case put before him, having considered it from all angles, and not on any prejudice he has formed for or against a particular local authority.
That is the procedure I shall follow. It is important for the House to realise that the Act gives the inspectorate the power of descheduling categories of works entirely, as it becomes established that research has shown how the problems of smoke emission can be overcome, and there is no longer any necessity for the particular interest of the Alkali Inspectorate.
I should not be afraid, and I feel sure that every other Minister would feel the same, of using those powers to deschedule categories of works entirely when the time came. But the time has not come yet.
I hope that the House will permit me, even if by those few words I have satisfied most of the doubts, to speak at slightly greater length. One hon. Member suggested that these responsibilities should be taken away from me and handed to some other Minister. I should deeply regret that. I find my duties under the Alkali Acts some of the most fascinating in my Department. I had an extremely interesting time the other day when, with the Chief Alkali Inspector, I visited works under the control of the inspectorate and saw some of the processes with which the inspectorate has to deal.

Mr. Nabarro: I made that suggestion. Would not the Minister recognise the fact that under this Order, for the first time, he is transferring to his Department control over emissions, notably of smoke, from 130 million tons of solid fuel burned annually, which is 60 per cent. of the solid fuel burned in this country? Surely it is reasonable that such a duty should fall on the Ministry of Power, which is established to deal with questions of that kind.

Mr. Brooke: I recognise the validity of my hon. Friend's figures, but if he will study page 7 of the Beaver Report he will find it established that no close corollary can be drawn between the amount of fuel consumed and the amount of pollution created. This is one of the fundamental facts of the problem.
It is not on personal predilections that I wish to retain these responsibilities, but rather because I believe that close co-operation between the Alkali Inspectorate and the local authorities is one of the primary needs of getting this job done well. I can assure the House that it will be my concern, and the desire of the inspectors themselves, to continue the close co-operation which they have established in many places already where they have been operating, and to extend that to all those local authorities with which in future they will have to deal.
All this arises from the specific recommendation of the Beaver Committee that in the case of certain industrial processes in which the prevention of dark smoke, grit or harmful gases presents special technical difficulties, responsibility for ensuring that the best practicable means of prevention are used at all times should be vested in the Alkali Inspectorate and the provisions of the Alkali Act should be extended accordingly. It is in line with that recommendation that provisions were put into the Clean Air Act.
The Order before the House is, in fact, not made under that Act. It is made under the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act, 1926. There have been four previous Orders of this kind. This one is distinctive because this is the first Order made since the extension to smoke, grit and dust was approved in the Clean Air Act, 1956. The reason for putting certain processes under the Alkali Acts is not to give these industries protection from any action taken by authorities, but because they have certain special technical difficulties, and it is considered essential that those special difficulties should be tackled by a single inspectorate with special technical qualifications reviewing each industry as a whole.
In these cases they really are national problems as well as local problems, because the trouble is caused not by somebody in the boiler house neglecting his duties and allowing dark smoke to

escape but by reason of the fact that scientific research has not yet solved the problem of operating a plant of the particular kind in question without risk of producing dark smoke.
My predecessor ordered a public inquiry in 1956 to determine to what classes of works and of industry this action should be applied. About 4,500 different works would have been scheduled under this Order if all the applications made before that public inquiry had been granted. In fact, the inquiry, which was conducted by Sir Frederick Armer, resulted in a Report which recommended that slightly less than half of all the works which industry had sought to get scheduled should be scheduled. I accepted the Armer Report virtually in toto.
This Order will, therefore, apply to about 2,000 works out of a total of between 25,000 and 30,000 works throughout the country which produce smoke—so I can assure my hon. Friends that there is no question of local authorities being left with nothing to do. Indeed, it is not really true to say that this Order deprives local authorities of powers which they have hitherto had. In fact, though local authorities have had certain powers, they have constantly complained in the past that those powers are ineffective both against metallurgical works and other works.

Mr. Marlowe: The Order prohibits local authorities from exercising control over any of the nationalised industries, does it not?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that this is a question as between nationalised industries and other industries.
As for power stations, the difficulty is that the plant in the older power stations will produce dark smoke, and we know no means of stopping that completely except by closing down the power stations. If the peak load has to be met, we obviously cannot afford to do without the old power stations. Difficult questions of the electricity supply industry, finance and economics are involved. There is no complete solution except by replacing older power stations with new ones which do not produce smoke.

Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend will forgive me, but surely he is missing the point. The power station is the most massive consideration under the Order,


and the emission from power station chimneys is not a matter of dark smoke but of pouring hundreds of tons of grit and muck every year on the heads of defenceless residents in the immediate area of the power stations. It is not a question of smoke at all. It is grit.

Mr. Brooke: The fact remains that no means are yet known of preventing that, and the reason why these power stations are being put under the Alkali Inspectorate is that we think that the most hopeful way of achieving results is by making absolutely sure that research of the right character, under wise control, is being carried out all the time. I would say with all sincerity to my hon. Friend that this is a national, and not just a local, problem. It is not that one power station misbehaves itself, but that all power stations of this character misbehave themselves, and we are more likely to find a solution if we continue our study nationally, rather than locally——

Mr. Bernard Braine: Does the same consideration apply to the emanations from oil refineries? I notice that there is absolutely no reference to them, and my right hon. Friend has made no reference to them, yet the oil refineries on Thames-side emit the most noxious fumes, which poison a large number of my constituents. Are we to understand that the strengthening of the Alkali Inspectorate will strengthen my right hon. Friend's hand in dealing with this nuisance?

Mr. Brooke: My hands are already strong enough, but nobody throughout the world has yet discovered a means of operating an oil refinery without causing any fumes at all. It is one of the special concerns of the staff to find out how that can be done, and I hope that my hon. Friend will acept that although we have not yet solved all the problems—and, certainly, fumes are caused when anything goes wrong—nevertheless, there is a steady improvement, and we trust that that will continue——

Mr. Leslie Hale: In a sentence, Lord Acton did point out that all power stations corrupt.

Mr. Brooke: I had better not get on to Lord Acton at twenty-three minutes past eleven.
At any rate, if it is admitted that it would be quite impossible to give local authorities the responsibility for con-

trolling the emission of dark smoke and grit from all this variety of works classified in the Order, there is then no other way to proceed except by making an Order of this kind, an Order which shall be a general, national Order, and then proceeding to consider, one by one, applications from the individual local authorities, finding out whether each has a properly-trained smoke inspectorate, and then coming to a proper decision on whether or not the power under Section 17 (2) can be exercised. That is precisely what I intend to do. I intend to operate this——

Mr. D. Jones: Will the Minister say something about the groups of local authorities, such as I mentioned, on Tees-side?

Mr. Brooke: I can see no reason at all why a group like that should not be formed. I think that each local authority would have to apply separately, but permission could be granted to each on the understanding that they all collaborated with one another. That is my understanding of the matter.
I trust that the House will not accept any of the suggestions or insinuations that have been made—I am sure in the heat of the moment—that the Alkali Inspectorate is either an empire-building or a remote or ineffective body. I know it intimately myself. My own belief and conviction is that it is one of the most powerful instruments we could have in helping Parliament to bring about what we all want—clean air for Britain.
So far as I am concerned, my desire will be to use my powers in such a way that the Alkali Inspectorate has every opportunity to get on with the stimulation of scientific research where there are technical problems unsolved, that it should co-operate as closely as possible with the local authorities, and that wherever a local authority is well qualified to take over the work an order under Section 17 (2) shall be made to enable it to do so.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the ample and, I think, very generous explanations given by my right hon. Friend, and notably the assurance which he has given the House in connection with Section 17 (2) of the Act, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

11.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I can assure the House that I shall be very brief. I have no intention of keeping hon. Members from their beds, and I should regard it as a permanent blot on my Parliamentary record if I caused any hon. Member to miss his train.
I should like just to say how delighted I have been to be connected with this Bill in its later stages. It was moved, as the House knows, some time ago by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), and I should like to take this opportunity to pay a very sincere tribute to the work he did at the Ministry of Labour. I hope hon. Members will agree with me. I think he will be chiefly remembered for his work on the Carr Committee, which will be very important in the months and years ahead, and also for his great contribution to the work for disabled people. I am delighted to be connected with this Bill he moved on Second Reading.
My hon. Friend said, when he moved it, that it was a modest Bill, partly because very few of the recommendations of the Piercy Committee had needed legislative action to implement them, and partly because we are all conscious of the limitations of legislation in this matter. I think we should probably all agree that much more important than legislation in this matter is, first of all, what I am glad to say is the increasingly enlightened attitude of employers towards disabled people; second, the co-operation between all those connected with and responsible for resettlement, such as the D.R.O.s, employers, almoners, and so on; and third, and perhaps most important, the determination of disabled people themselves, and the realisation that they all, even if they are seriously disabled, can get a job of work on equal terms with other able-bodied people. I must

say I have been very heartened in the last five or ten years to see a number of disabled people actually in better jobs than they would have had if they had not been disabled, jobs they have got after re-training, and so on.
If the House gives us this further legislative authority, conscious as we may be of the limitations of legislation, I can assure hon. Gentlemen that we shall do our best with this legislative authority continually to improve our administrative arrangements for the ends which I think we all share in common.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not want to detain the House at this time of night. I rise to put only one specific point, which arises on Clause 3 (2) and paragraph 2 of the Schedule. In doing so, I may perhaps be permitted to tell the House a very simple story of events in Oldham.
Seven or eight years ago, there met in Oldham six severely disabled people, of whom all but one were confined to invalid chairs. They decided that not enough was being done, although it is a town which does admirable social work and work for the disabled. They came to the conclusion that only the disabled could provide the sort of service needed in the town. I can say with great sincerity that one of the reasons why we listen to the Minister who has just moved the Third Reading and my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) is not merely that we hold them in high regard but that both have acquired empirical experience in dealing with problems of disabled people.
One admired the guts of these people in Oldham in endeavouring to obtain a hall where all the disabled of the town could meet. Although no one discouraged them, we felt they were taking on something that could not be done. But, by dint of all-out purpose, they kept at the job and visited the disabled and, by little tea parties and other small efforts, raised funds by which they secured a shed on the Sheffield—Oldham Road which they made into a first-class institution. Although I have told this story before and apologise for repeating it, I want to use it as an illustration. At that stage, the only help they had was a few local guarantors and some from the local authority under powers conferred by


Section 30 of the National Assistance Act, 1948.
At this point the relevant matter arises. When these people said they would trace by every available means every disabled person in the borough, find out what they needed and try to cater for their needs, the full magnitude of the problem was presented. For the first time they found men completely confined to their homes by the nature of their injuries, men who had never been out of their homes for years. Very often they subsisted on the kindness of working-class neighbours, with all too little time for their own affairs. They found some who had built round themselves a shell of inhibition and remained in their small tenements. They did not go out because they had lost the will to do so. They had almost severed their connections with the town. They found that the only way to take these people on organised excursions was by the use of special buses which could take folding chairs and occasional stretchers.
The genius behind it all was a man, himself crippled in the spine to an extent that made it impossible for him to sit. In that condition, in a special chair, he pedalled himself around the town for 30 years. He was a man named Arthur Lees, whom, I am happy to say, Her Majesty honoured in the Honours List a couple of years ago. He was most unfortunately and tragically killed in an accident about two months later when going about his duties. He was one of the best men I have met, who had some of the genuine qualities of greatness.
As the project progressed Oldham Council found that under Section 30 of the National Assistance Act some of the powers which are now the subject of this legislation could be delegated. It is too late to talk about Amendments to this Bill in this House, but it has to go to another place. Although Section 30 of the Act has not been repealed, the power of a local authority to delegate functions to a special committee or board is also given under Clause 3 (2). This would make the local authority functus officio for that purpose, and therefore mean that the special board had not the power of delegation under Section 30 to voluntary organisations of some of its functions. It seems to me very important that Section 30 should be preserved.
I listened with attention and with a certain amount of recollection a few minutes ago to the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) extolling the virtues of Brighton. He referred to Socialism. Speaking as a Socialist, I have always deplored the fact that highly important and valuable Socialist measures have sometimes tended to wipe out the work of voluntary organisations. It is welcome when the work of voluntary organisations can be preserved, because I believe that there is a quality in the voluntary organisation movement which in this field can contribute something which no officialdom, however efficient, can contribute—understanding, tolerance and perhaps time and patience, all of which are qualities needed to solve this problem.
I ask the Minister to consider that and to try to give us an assurance that Section 30 will not be impaired and that the powers of local authorities to continue to delegate to voluntary bodies in this important field will not be harmed at all.

11.36 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in what he said about voluntary organisations, which I fully support. We have an excellent organisation in the city of Plymouth, and only last year twenty-nine completely disabled people were entertained in the House.
I had the honour to serve on the Committee which dealt with the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend in getting it through in less than an hour, although I should add that we did not skimp it but went through it in considerable detail. May I ask for my hon. Friend's assurance on one or two points which were mentioned then?
First, and again following what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I want an assurance that we shall safeguard voluntary organisations, especially those dealing with the blind. I am still not sure that D.R.O.s will not take over the work at present done by voluntary organisations. Looking through the Report of the Committee proceedings, I am not sure that I expressed my meaning clearly about this. I should like an assurance that work now being carried out by voluntary organisations, particularly that on behalf of blind


people, will be allowed to remain in the hands of those who for many years have been recognised as very competent to do the job.
I understand that we are to allow a disabled person to withdraw his name from the register if he so wishes, and I should like my hon. Friend to give an assurance that it will be possible for such a person to put his name back on the register if he finds that necessary. Particularly in view of the fact that at present we have perhaps a little more unemployment than we have had in recent years, I am anxious that he or she should remain as one of the quota of the firm concerned. If such a person takes his name off the register, does it mean that he will no longer be regarded as disabled and no longer remain on the firm's quota?
I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act my hon. Friend will get in touch with local authorities to see that there is no overlapping between local authorities and existing voluntary organisations. I suggest that in a town or city where there is a Remploy, any sheltered workshop might be attached to that Remploy, because it will already have trained people, teachers and competent staff who can help immensely with this work. I hope that one of the first things my hon. Friend will do when the Bill becomes an Act is to send a circular to the various local authorities explaining in detail how he wishes the Act to be carried out, ensuring that there is no overlapping and particularly giving full opportunity to the voluntary organisations to carry on the work which they have done so well in the past.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: We on this side welcome the Bill as a genuine effort to implement some of the recommendations of the Piercy Committee. It is a pity that we have to crowd what we have to say into a short time at the end of the day. It seems that the disabled are always left behind. We have very keen debates on some problems, and it is unfortunate that we have to deal with the final stages of the Bill in this House at this hour. However, be that as it may. We do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary for that but the arrangers of our business.
We should like an early report on the position up to date in respect of the implementation of the recommendations of the Piercy Committee. Which of those recommendations have the Government fully accepted, and which of them have been implemented by purely administrative methods? We have no desire to impede the progress of the Bill, but we should not like to leave it tonight without a few assurances as to administration. This is largely a machinery Bill, and our object in the discussions we have had has been to secure assurances that it will be administered in such a way as to make certain that the disabled people it caters for will get the maximum benefit from it. In our short and harmonious Committee proceedings, we succeeded in clarifying some matters, and, as a result of the assurances given by the Parliamentary Secretary, doubts and fears on many points which some hon. Members had felt were eradicated.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) raised the question of the two registers in his Amendment, and urged the need to facilitate the transfer of those who suffered prolonged unemployment from one section to the other. We were generally satisfied, as a result of our discussion, that that transfer could proceed expeditiously once the D.R.O. was satisfied that the man or woman could not be placed in open employment. On reflection, I think that probably the flexibility which comes from administrative methods may be to the advantage of the disabled, rather than the more rigid method of legislation. The assurance of constant review of these cases and prompt administrative action gave us satisfaction.
It would not be too much to say that the disablement resettlement officers will play an important part in the administration of this Measure. I re-emphasise, therefore, the need to appoint men and women who have a vocation for this kind of service, not those who merely regard it as a jumping-off ground for a better appointment later in the Ministry. The D.R.O. who has a real vocation will know of no better job than that of bringing human sympathy into his work and being always able to see the human being behind the case papers. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us to what extent the recommendations on this aspect, in paragraphs 189, 190 and 191


of the Report, have been or are in process of being implemented.
Paragraph 189 recommends
That the Ministry … take steps to secure that its methods of selection are such as to ensure that in the case of all disablement resettlement officer appointments, the fullest consideration is given to the question of the officer's suitability and inclination for this work.
That is a most important recommendation. How far has it been implemented?
The Committee was rather critical of training in the past. It said that the courses should be retained in their present form, but was not
altogether satisfied with the adequacy of the initial training given to disablement resettlement officers on their appointment. It is recommended that the present three to four day courses"—
that rather shook me—a three to four day course for a proposal of this importance—
should be very considerably extended in time so as to make it far more comprehensive, and that it should include such a period of training on the job, under the supervision of a group disablement resettlement officer or experienced local disablement resettlement officer, as will thoroughly equip the newly-appointed officer for the work he is to do.
The other recommendation was that D.R.O.s should deal with all disabled persons within a specified area, whatever their disabilities, and should continue to co-operate with voluntary organisations, hospitals and local authorities and doctors in the area. This co-operation with voluntary organisations, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) referred, and which was mentioned in Committee by the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers), is most important, and we should do all we can to encourage it.
It only remains for me to say that good will all round and willing co-operation between the Ministry and the local authorities will make this Measure an effective instrument in the service of disabled persons, and we hope that it will soon find its way on to the Statute Book.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Wood: By leave of the House; I assure the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), whose speeches I always like reading after having listened

to them, as they then sink in much more than when I first listen to them, that Section 30 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, is not affected by the Bill. I was interested to hear of his experience and, after having had the chance to read his speech, I shall certainly take very careful note of the points he has made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) was very anxious that we should safeguard the position of voluntary organisations. I can certainly give her that assurance. The Piercy Committee made certain recommendations about work on behalf of the blind and placing blind people in employment, and my right hon. Friend is considering those at the moment.
I explained in Committee that, in order to balance voluntary registration, it was thought right, if a man voluntarily registered, that he should be able voluntarily to withdraw from the register; but there is nothing to prevent a man, if he withdraws from the register today, applying for registration tomorrow.
Extension of sheltered employment and co-operation between Remploy and voluntary sheltered workshops is a matter that would need the consent of my right hon. Friend, and he would take all those considerations into account.
I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) said about the implementation of the non-legislative recommendations of the Piercy Committee. I am very glad that he was re-assured by the assurance which I gave in Committee about the constant review which we shall make about Section I and Section II cases.
I know that he is very interested in the work and training of D.R.O.s. In fact, I can give him all the assurances for which he asked. These are men who are appointed by the regional controllers, who are in the service of the Ministry of Labour, who have experience on the employment side and who have not only experience in, but inclination for this work. I am able to tell the hon. Member that the average time a D.R.O. spends in his work is five or six years. The hon. Member was quite right to refer to training. We all realised that the training given to D.R.O.s was too short, and it is being increased from the


period the hon. Gentleman mentioned to a month, and that, I think, is satisfactory.
I ask the House to give the Bill its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — COAL (EXPORTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

11.50 p.m.

Sir Peter Roberts: In raising tonight the question of coal exports, it is not my purpose to go into details or to try to tell the National Coal Board how to run its business. My intention is to ask the Minister if he will bear in mind certain political factors with regard to the export of coal, and to urge his right hon. Friend the Minister to make an announcement about the Government's policy in order not only to reassure people in this country but also those overseas whom we hope will buy our coal.
First, I want to give the House what I consider to be the relevant factors. The first is that we have at present in this country approximately 27 million tons of coal and coke. Of this, 7 million tons of coal and approximately l½ million tons of coke are unsold by the Coal Board. The rest has been sold by the Board and is in the hands of distributors. Much of this coal is small coal, but it is nevertheless a valuable commodity. The second relevant factor is that the United States of America last year exported to the Continent—and it is really the Continent with which I am most concerned—approximately 38 million tons of coal. That is an astonishing figure when one realises that these Continental markets were our traditional markets before the war.
The third relevant factor is that foreign Governments are now intervening more and more in the coal markets, either directly by an embargo on the importation of coal or by putting on tariffs, or even providing subsidies. These are the political factors which the Government must take into account when considering this matter; they are not the direct responsibility of the Coal Board.
I and others urged the Government to step up their coal export programme as long ago as June of last year. At that time it would have been possible for the Board to have made contracts at a reasonably satisfactory price, but I fear that nothing very much was done until October and November last year, by


which time surpluses were obvious and it was extremely difficult to sell the coal. Despite that, United States exporters sold coal to the Continent in October and November last year, and even in January of this year. The figures are slightly alarming. There were definite freight bookings for coal from the United States to the Continent in January of this year—they may have altered since, but these are the latest figures that I have—for 26 million tons in 1958; 19 million tons in 1959 and 10 million tons in 1960.
We have coal available in this country, but we are not selling it abroad, and I want to come to what I believe are the main reasons for our inability to sell this coal. I understand that the Coal Board is not prepared to give any firm guarantee of quality as that term is understood by coal importers on the Continent. The Minister should ask his advisers to arrange for some method of guaranteeing a quality satisfactory to those importers. I do not think there is sufficient confidence in the continuity of United Kingdom coal supplies. From time to time we have almost put an embargo on supplies of coal to the Continent, which to a certain extent has weakened the confidence of the Continental importers.
In December of last year, the Minister announced that we were prepared to consider three-year contracts. That was all to the good, but unfortunately it was a little late; and we must consider periods even longer than three years. We are hoping to win back markets which were traditionally ours for something like 100 years, and we must give confidence abroad regarding the continuity of supplies. The third reason why we are not getting the sales we need is the inflexibility of price. At the moment, we are not prepared to meet the competition which we have to face abroad.
What are the remedies which the Minister should employ? I feel it important that I should impress on the Minister that there are certain steps which should be taken immediately. The first is that the Government should announce a target figure for the export of coal for a period of years. This should be a firm figure and an indication of the type of policy we wish to pursue. I suggest that we should attain a figure of about 10 million tons a year.
The second remedy is for the Coal Board and the Ministry to concentrate on those areas of the Continent most favourable to us and whose custom is likely to remain with us. We have to face the competition of oil, and other forms of competition, and the areas which the Minister should invite the Board to study are North-West Germany, Holland, France and Denmark, where there may be demands from power stations.
Most important is that the Minister should be prepared to advise the Coal Board to reduce its prices on short-term deliveries. I do not believe that sufficient thought has been given to this aspect of the problem. Although there must be a long period of continuity of supply, prices tend to fluctuate in the markets of the world. We must be prepared to meet those price fluctuations. My feeling at the moment is that we are not flexible enough in this problem. I understand that in the last twelve years this country has earned a premium on the price at which is has sold coal abroad as compared with the price at home of something between £75 million and £100 million. That is the premium we have obtained in the past. If I am right in those figures, and there is some doubt, I think the time has come when we should use some of that premium in reducing our prices, on the short term, in dealing with our customers overseas.
Fourthly—and this is a point I have already stressed—we must build up confidence with our customers that once we have started we can continue to supply them with coal.
The fifth point I would urge on my hon. Friend is that the Government must play their part in negotiations for the sale of coal overseas. I say this rather reluctantly, because it is not the general principle that the Government should have to enter into negotiations to support the sale of commodities. But this is done more and more, and with coal particularly foreign Governments are entering this field. I will mention three countries as an example.
I understand that the Finnish Government have put an embargo on the importation of United Kingdom coal and coke. On the other hand, we buy from Finland wood pulp, paper and pit props. I believe that in these negotiations Her


Majesty's Government should give some help and support to the Coal Board and our exporters in trying to sell coal and coke to Finland. The Danish Government are quick enough to make representations to this country regarding the sale of butter. Our Government should help regarding the sale of coal and coke to Denmark. Finally, the Italian Government at the moment have a tariff of 10 per cent. on United Kingdom coke going into Italy. I should have thought that this was a field where Her Majesty's Government should get into negotiation with the Italian Government and the authorities under G.A.T.T. to see whether that position could be relieved.
I believe that the Government will have to support the exporters and the Coal Board in this sales drive.
The reason I have raised this matter is that I believe it is important, in relation to getting confidence abroad, for the Minister to make a statement and to give some guidance to those people who wish to purchase coal from this country.
It is a frightening thing to me that traditional markets for the export of coal—the Continent of Europe—have now apparently gone across the Atlantic to American coal supplies. It does not help us in our exchange control problems, or in anything else. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will relay to his right hon. Friend the Minister these very sincere convictions which I hold, and I hope that, as a result, we shall be able to build up again the confidence of those people who wish to buy British coal.

12.4 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) has raised very important matters in this short debate. Even if time permitted, I am sure he would not expect me at this horrible hour to deal with them at length. Many of his points will certainly need consideration. Some are not primarily the concern of my Department; matters of trade negotiation, for instance, are not among those with which we are directly concerned.
My hon. Friend raised questions about which, I am afraid, I cannot be very hopeful—price concessions, for example. He said that we should use the premium

which we had earned in the past from coal exports. Unfortunately, in so far as the premium is relevant, it has all been used long ago, and the Coal Board has an accumulated deficit of £30 million, is still running a deficit, and is not, therefore, in a position to make price concessions very easily. I would also point out that some of the points that he raised, as he no doubt appreciates, are matters entirely for the Coal Board itself. Whether the Board was quick enough off the mark in seeing what was happening in the small coal market is a matter for consideration, but it is a matter entirely within the commercial responsibility of the Coal Board and is not a matter for the Ministry.
However, all that does not dispose of the very important question of coal exports from this country and their future. I think I can most usefully use a few moments in bringing out the point which I think is fundamental and which, with respect, my hon. Friend did not seem altogether to apprciate in the presentation which he made. It is a fact that all the contracts that have ever been entered into have been fulfilled and that the interest of the Board and the Government under both Administrations—Socialist up till 1951 and ourselves since—has broadly speaking coincided. Their views on what should be done in respect of coal available for export have been the same. That is not surprising, because although it is true—but not sufficiently recognised—that on balance the Coal Board has made very large sums of profit on imports and exports of coal, nevertheless ton for ton it loses very heavily if it imports one ton of coal and exports another. Therefore, the Board's finances are always in favour of pushing exports and reducing imports. Similarly, the interest of the Government, who throughout all these years have been so much concerned with balance of payments, goes the same way.
One of the most serious changes which caused the more recent cuts had just such a background, and I can give my hon. Friend the figures if he wishes. Whereas in 1949 and 1950, and again in 1952 and 1953, the balance of payments benefited on balance from coal imports and exports by about £50 million, in 1955 that £50 million credit was turned into a deficiency of £20 million. Therefore,


it is not surprising that the Coal Board and the Government have always been at one in what had to be done.
The coal export policy of this country since the war has, broadly speaking, imposed itself. I will remind my hon. Friend of some of the figures. In the year 1950, the then Administration and the Coal Board exported just under 13 million tons. In 1951, when so many things collapsed about the then Administration, a very savage cut had to be made in those exports by almost half, down to less than 8 million tons, due to the fact that they were drawing on stocks to such an extent that there was an imminent danger of a distribution breakdown and the Coal Board being unable to implement its main statutory duty of providing coal for home consumption.
What has happened since 1951 till this last year has been that coal production has been, broadly speaking, steady and, as a result of the great industrial expansion which has been going on all the time since 1951, consumption has increased from 212 million tons in 1951 to 220 million tons in 1956. If we put stable production against greatly increased home consumption, it does not require a great deal of arithmetic to realise that there is not a balance available for continued high exports unless—and that is what began to happen—at the same time as we export we import. That is disastrous to the Coal Board's finances and to the balance of payments. Broadly speaking, therefore, there has been no alternative. Without increased production, unless and until home consumption unhappily falls off, there just is not a margin for net exports.
We have the experience of last year. Last year, while production remained more or less stable, and we cut imports for the reason I have given, consumption went down for the first time for some years. Other things being equal, there would then have been a balance for export, but we could not export because there was no market, and the coal went into stock. Britain is not alone in that respect. Stocks on the Continent have gone up by about 8 million tons, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is in Western Europe that we have to look for our main markets.
We have to face the fact that if coal production remains more or less stagnant and stable, as it has done for the last six or seven years, either we cannot sell the coal or we have not got it to sell. If business activity begins to grow again on the Continent we will be able to sell some coal, but if production is beginning to go up on the Continent we very much hope that it will begin to go up here as well. In that case, inland consumption will rise to the figure in 1955 or 1956, and, if production remains stable, we will no longer have a big surplus for export.
Unless production increases, and unless we can be sure that it will increase over a series of years ahead, it is quite impossible, it would be almost dishonest, for the Government or the Coal Board to make the kind of statement for which my hon. Friend asks, because, production being stable, we shall either not be able to sell coal for lack of a market, or we shall need it at home.
That is not to say that there is no likelihood of exports in future. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Coal Board has already said that it is prepared to consider longer contracts for certain quantities and qualities of available coal—chiefly the small coal, which is the kind that the power stations to which he referred will want. The Board will be given every assistance by the Government in doing that, because the interest of the Government in the balance of payments and the interest of the Board financially, run together.
It is the best advice of those technically concerned that there will be a continuing demand, which has been put as high as 40 million tons a year, for imports of coal into Western Europe. Freight rates at present are quite fantastically and uneconomically low, but when they come back to something like normal there is no reason why, if we keep our coal prices at an economic level we should not have the possibility of selling some of our coal to Western Europe. Whether a sufficiently active and intelligent sales policy has always been carried out by the Board, or will be in the future, is a matter for the Board itself.
It is the Government's policy to increase exports of coal to the Continent, which is our main market for it, but it


is useless to hold out any mirage to ourselves. If coal production remains at its present level, and if business, as we hope, goes back in this country to the boom conditions that we had been having up to quite recently, there will not be a surplus, taking one year with another. No analysis can alter that fact. The key to the situation is the produc-

tion of more coal more cheaply, and anything which the Government can do or the Board can do or the miners can do to that end will have a rich reward in exports and in the earnings we obtain from them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter-past Twelve o'clock.